It is ironic that those who are less well off fail to see any connection between those they vote for and their personal interest. Those who least need to benefit do see it.
I thought Ben Horowitz was fairly progressive. Were these high net-worth VCs, CEOs, and fund managers suddenly endorsing Trump actually closet Trumpers all along, or are they just cynically reading the room and trying to pander to it? For Bill Ackman, it certainly seems to be the latter, given his tendency to walk back premature hot-takes: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-ackman-no-hire-list-gle...
> The reason he is choosing Trump over President Joe Biden boils down primarily to one major issue — he believes Trump’s policies are much more favorable for tech, specifically for the startup ecosystem.
This is at least clear. Trump will make Andreessen Horowitz more money in the value proposition of modern american investment than Democrat policies.
The fact that democrat policies might be more socially progressive, regarding female reproductive rights, or in housing, public utility functions, health, strategic posture in the world, defensive to real goods and services trade worldwide, has nothing to do with it.
No, Andreessen Horowitz is focussed on the bottom line: They will get orgasmically rich no matter what, but it will be multiple orgasms of money, if Trump wins.
Tech is not why I vote, that should be clear. I vote for reasons which do not relate to the VC model of finance, and the tech sector investment posture.
(I am not an american, nor reside in the USA and so this comment is from outside)
Not sure why my post was flagged here.. .but
My counter answer to yours is:
--
I suspect that many of the people in some public / high-net-worth / high-visibility positions that support Trump, actually share most of his views (on social issues, on governance, on foreign policy).
However, those folks will pick up 'least divisive' differentiating issue they can find, and will say that 'that's why the support Trump (e.g. low taxes, or whatever).
But I think they support him for being a modern day hero, basically -- withstanding the assault on his person, assault on his close allies, on the US Constitution, withstanding the pain, the threats, for years -- and not giving up.
And, yes, they support whatever he stands for as well. So they support the person, and support his policies not just 'a particular issue.
Yes. But I think Andreessen Horowitz are --> saying <-- it's because of a specific outcome.
I don't for one minute think thats the only reason. I agree with most of your intent: they agree with him both personally and politically. It makes perfect sense for them to vote for him, and to ask others to vote for him.
It's entirely self consistent. I don't think its laudable, nor do I think Trump is a hero. I do think the resilience these people show in the face of contempt is an admirable quality, but thats very specific: Theil is resilient in the face of years of opposition, grounded in what I am told (read) was persisting bullying at university by liberal elites. Does that somehow make every cause he believes in equally tenable to me? Fuck no! He's utterly opposed to my personal and political goals in life, and we are polar opposites politically. His personal resilience in the face of abuse to his sexuality has nothing to do with it.
Edit: I have read that Trumps immigration policies will affect H1-B class visa, and so the chain of cheap ICT labour from India is going to dry up. This has in part fuelled the tech value chain. So, is it not possible that Trump's policies are actually .. harmful to the VC sector?
What an evolution for the tech industry. From being the underdogs trying to change the world for the better, to becoming top dogs with all the same egoism and "money and power above all" that Big Oil and similar industries have been known for for decades.
From that perspective, Trump loves money, loves deregulation, and will open the door for whatever dystopian play if it provides enough benefits to him, so it only makes sense for him to be more favoured.
All that will come from this will be more evidence to how power corrupts everyone, and a lot of money made.
You're missing the slightly lower tax rates that Marc could be paying if Trump were president!
I mean, sure, Trump might think any election that he doesn't win is fraudulent and that he's above the law, but what's truly important for America is that Andreessen Horowitz co-founders pay slightly less taxes.
Yeah, I hear ya, but wouldn’t he rather want to keep being able to vote on what the tax rates should be?
We don’t have to wonder whether Trump would protect our right to choose our president—he has already tried to unconstitutionally send fraudulent electors, who we did not vote for, and he send a murderous mob to make Mike Pence an offer he couldn’t refuse.
Seriously, what am I missing here? Do people just not know how the electoral college works, so they don’t understand that he violated his oath?
