4 ms·

From Peter Thiels perspective its a smart move because he's the only one willing to do something this crazy. This gives him a "monopoly" (as he likes to say) on

by wturner 10y ago

From Peter Thiels perspective its a smart move because he's the only one willing to do something this crazy. This gives him a "monopoly" (as he likes to say) on political access as it relates to the tech world if Trump wins. In short it looks like a bet. Personally I find Trump an archetype of everything I'm trying to get away from in life.... but that is not the point. Also this is just my opinion and maybe their is no greater agenda and Peter Thiel just likes him.

pbreit 10y ago
Yep, it's pretty much the supreme contrarian move which as you say, if he's right, gives him a virtually monopoly.
__derek__ 10y ago
That is interesting. I hadn't come across that idea before. He's effectively shorting American democracy and rule of law. If he wins, he will collect a huge windfall (aside from the access, imagine all the contracts that Palantir will win). If he loses, he still has his status in the Valley, where he hasn't been ostracized for heterdox ideas.
mark_l_watson 10y ago
+1 good comment! I read Thiel's Zero to One book twice, and you might have nailed the reason. BTW, off topic, but this campaign is crazy. I don't like either Clinton or Trump, and have mentioned to friends and family that I will leave the presidential part of the ballot in November blank or vote for Jill Stein. It just seems wrong to me to vote for someone I simply don't like. For this honesty, I have several friends who are all over my case for 'wasting my vote.'
- tlrobinson 10y ago
  If you really want to upset your unprincipled friends tell them you're going to write in "Giant Meteor" https://twitter.com/votegiantmeteor https://twitter.com/votegiantmeteor
- Miner49er 10y ago
  Your vote actually counts for more, at least in non-swing states. If Stein gets 5% of the popular vote (not electoral collage) the Green party gets funding next election and more recognition as a party. It's the first step to ending the two party system. You're right to vote who you like best, not who you think actually has a chance to win.
supersaiyanverx 10y ago
I also came to a similar conclusion this morning, I think he realizes that a Trump presidency is a huge opening for power since Trump will be largely reliant on his advisors to make any kind of decision when it comes to the implementation details of his proposals. What he might want to use this power for, is less clear, he is not quite the classic Libertarian people here seem to think he is. He strikes me as more of the Hoppe variety, or even a post-Libertarian ala Moldbug.
internaut 10y ago
I don't think you're wrong but I think there is more to it than that. This isn't a short term speculation. If you have a classical education (reading lots of old books) then this is all perfectly comprehensible. The story Thiel tells is also intuitively comprehensible to blue collar workers without being fortified by intellectual assistance. Having both a classical reading library and a blue collar background everything I have seen so far makes perfect sense. If however you're part of what the WaPo describes as: "The one publicly acceptable reason seems to be that Silicon Valley needs to become more than an ossified monoculture of liberal upper-class privileged ethnic groups. “Tech industry is primarily out of touch by being too far to the Left,” tweeted investor Keith Rabois, in a conversation about Thiel." Then nothing will ever make sense, just as the Remain voters in Brexit literally find their loss incomprehensible. There is nothing wrong with being left oriented politically, it's a perfectly acceptable set of values that society often requires but if you're surrounded by people identical to yourself you're unlikely to get substantive negative feedback. I have to say that in experience the middle classes are much more resistant to the realization everything is not improving outside of computers despite the evidence surrounding them. When they see troubles ahead they want to shoot the messengers, usually by describing individuals as mentally ill or conjuring up bogeymen like the Nazis, they are extremely resistant to the idea we are dealing with a systemic problem. A decline is not in their portfolio or in their suite of mental models.

by wturner 10y ago

pbreit 10y ago

Yep, it's pretty much the supreme contrarian move which as you say, if he's right, gives him a virtually monopoly.

__derek__ 10y ago

That is interesting. I hadn't come across that idea before. He's effectively shorting American democracy and rule of law. If he wins, he will collect a huge windfall (aside from the access, imagine all the contracts that Palantir will win). If he loses, he still has his status in the Valley, where he hasn't been ostracized for heterdox ideas.

mark_l_watson 10y ago

+1 good comment! I read Thiel's Zero to One book twice, and you might have nailed the reason. BTW, off topic, but this campaign is crazy. I don't like either Clinton or Trump, and have mentioned to friends and family that I will leave the presidential part of the ballot in November blank or vote for Jill Stein. It just seems wrong to me to vote for someone I simply don't like. For this honesty, I have several friends who are all over my case for 'wasting my vote.'

tlrobinson 10y ago
If you really want to upset your unprincipled friends tell them you're going to write in "Giant Meteor" https://twitter.com/votegiantmeteor https://twitter.com/votegiantmeteor
Miner49er 10y ago
Your vote actually counts for more, at least in non-swing states. If Stein gets 5% of the popular vote (not electoral collage) the Green party gets funding next election and more recognition as a party. It's the first step to ending the two party system. You're right to vote who you like best, not who you think actually has a chance to win.

supersaiyanverx 10y ago

I also came to a similar conclusion this morning, I think he realizes that a Trump presidency is a huge opening for power since Trump will be largely reliant on his advisors to make any kind of decision when it comes to the implementation details of his proposals. What he might want to use this power for, is less clear, he is not quite the classic Libertarian people here seem to think he is. He strikes me as more of the Hoppe variety, or even a post-Libertarian ala Moldbug.

internaut 10y ago

I don't think you're wrong but I think there is more to it than that. This isn't a short term speculation. If you have a classical education (reading lots of old books) then this is all perfectly comprehensible. The story Thiel tells is also intuitively comprehensible to blue collar workers without being fortified by intellectual assistance. Having both a classical reading library and a blue collar background everything I have seen so far makes perfect sense. If however you're part of what the WaPo describes as: "The one publicly acceptable reason seems to be that Silicon Valley needs to become more than an ossified monoculture of liberal upper-class privileged ethnic groups. “Tech industry is primarily out of touch by being too far to the Left,” tweeted investor Keith Rabois, in a conversation about Thiel." Then nothing will ever make sense, just as the Remain voters in Brexit literally find their loss incomprehensible. There is nothing wrong with being left oriented politically, it's a perfectly acceptable set of values that society often requires but if you're surrounded by people identical to yourself you're unlikely to get substantive negative feedback. I have to say that in experience the middle classes are much more resistant to the realization everything is not improving outside of computers despite the evidence surrounding them. When they see troubles ahead they want to shoot the messengers, usually by describing individuals as mentally ill or conjuring up bogeymen like the Nazis, they are extremely resistant to the idea we are dealing with a systemic problem. A decline is not in their portfolio or in their suite of mental models.