8 ms·

> despite Trump’s advocacy of protectionist tariffs and extreme immigration restrictions, measures that would seem at odds with the radical libertarian image Th

by bko 10y ago

> despite Trump’s advocacy of protectionist tariffs and extreme immigration restrictions, measures that would seem at odds with the radical libertarian image Thiel projects. This is what's most baffling considering Trump is the most statist candidate in modern politics. Most of his success is built on anti-immigration and tariffs. He may agree with more non-interventionist/isolationist foreign policy of Trump, but I don't see these as the cornerstone of his campaign. Also, he's been less consistent on those issues, in one breadth suggesting he wouldn't support NATO allies, and in another saying he would be aggressive in internationalist expansion in fighting terrorism. One theory is that he's an opportunist, and since he is such a unique surrogate of Trump, he will be in a unique position to promote his ideas. The Democratic side is likely more crowded in terms of tech-billionaires writing out checks for a sympathetic ear. He's simply hedging, which ironically he's against as well!

falsestprophet 10y ago
Thiel has opposed mass [1] immigration to the United States which should not be mistaken with opposition to all immigration. For context, only 15% of new lawful permanent residents in 2014 were selected for education or skill (the employment-preference category). [1] like (but not limited to) anyone who likes strolling over the border or overstaying visas
- vkou 10y ago
  The net immigration rate to the US is 0.38%. That's hardly 'mass immigration.' I take it that means he's happy with the status quo? And, if not, when is he going back to Germany?
  - falsestprophet 10y ago
    10% of the California workforce is undocumented 5% of the national workforce is undocumented
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - vkou 10y ago
      ... 5% of the working age population, accumulated over the span of decades isn't massive. The fabric of civil society isn't about to unravel.
  - winter_blue 10y ago
    Yes, most people don't realize that the U.S. actually has a super low 0.38% immigrate rate. It's truly extreme xenophobia and racism that these liars who falsely claim "mass immigration" can't tolerate the tiny 0.38% that comes to the U.S. every year. They see a few immigrants in their neighborhoods, and their blood immediately starts to boil, and they get filled up with loathing and hatred. They are total hypocrites, who ignore that most of their ancestors came here in the last 200 years[2], and a disgrace to this country and its immigrant heritage. I hypothesize that there would no complaining if 100% of the immigrants who came here were white Europeans. At the root, it's not about immigration -- it's just plain racism. [1] As Sam Altman of Y Combinator aptly put it: "most Americans saying no immigration are here because their families immigrated in the last 200 years", c.f. https://twitter.com/sama/status/550110475199848448 https://twitter.com/sama/status/550110475199848448
    - randothrowaway 10y ago
      >They are total hypocrites Maybe they are angry because people are coming illegally.
      - vkou 10y ago
        You're right - a descendant of French immigrants has quite the leg to stand on. After all, his great-grandparents legally entered the country... At the time when undesirables, like Chinese, Indians, and the Polish were barred from entry. But at least the Frenchmen came legally! Sure, entry was granted under an extremely racist immigration law, but the legality is what gives him the moral high ground to stand on.
        randothrowaway 10y ago
        Under your rational then you should be pro building a wall as currently illegal immigration is a default "racist" policy that encourages those from central America while discriminating against Indians and Chinese. Build the wall and regulate immigration so more Indians and Chinese come relative to their world population.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    1 out of 8 people in the US are immigrants. That's the highest it's ever been in recent history. And more than enough to have a big effect on the economy.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- bko 10y ago
  > The billionaire tech investor has been a staunch opponent of immigration. Back in 2008, Gawker found that Thiel had donated $1 million to NumbersUSA, an anti-immigration group that has consistently been labelled racist and a firm fan of active population control. ... > He then invested in the SeaSteading Institute which wanted to turn Thiel’s dream into a reality. The reason? He felt the government wasn’t doing enough to keep Silicon Valley stocked with foreign talent. [0] Some mixed messaging here... [0] http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/05/10/shouldnt-surprised-peter-thiels-secret-crush-donald-trump/#gref http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/05/10/shouldnt-surprised-...
  - bruceb 10y ago
    It isn't you are just changing the mix of who is coming. One could argue that decrease low skilled immigration and upping higher skilled immigration would boost those at the bottom. Raising wages at the bottom while reducing the price of some more complex services.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - bko 10y ago
      I guess it's under the whole idea the immigration drives down wages. It's likely true that it does drive down wages for certain individuals but the net impact is at worse break even. Wages are an expense after-all, and if you cut the expense and prices go down, everyone benefits by at least the amount that the price had dropped. Some lose out by losing their job so their losses would be offset by the gains of others by having lower prices. This ignores the fact that more people are buying the product at the lower price. And this also assumes that markets are competitive and that the company can't just continue to charge the same price and pocket the difference, which I don't think is unreasonable in a competitive market economy. So the many get lower prices, and pay taxes that compensate the concentrated few that are affected by the job losses or lower wages.
      - Houshalter 10y ago
- throwaway13337 10y ago
  As some of the siblings point out, it seems like a contradiction that he complains about the lack of tech workers but also is against mass immigration. These aren't actually opposing when you look deeper - the US does not provide much of a means of legal immigration for high skilled worker. On the other hand, the US also does not restrict illegal immigration so much - it's easy to get a menial job, a driver's license, just about everything without a legal visa status. In essence, you have a defacto second class citizen type immigration with a very limited first class immigration ability of the US. Probably this is the opposite of what would benefit the country most.
- vkou 10y ago
  Illegal immigration is not mass immigration. This is dog-whistle politics, that conveniently conflates opposition to something illegal, with something very appealing to xenophobes.
tstactplsignore 10y ago
>He may agree with more non-interventionist/isolationist foreign policy of Trump There's really not any good evidence that Trump would do anything of the sort. He was for the wars in Iraq and Libya at the time, and is only against them now (and pretends he always was) because he's the ultimate political opportunist. Considering that right now he's said that he will "bomb the shit" out of ISIS and "send a few troops", it's pretty clear that a Trump presidency would be anything but isolationist.
- lisper 10y ago
  > it's pretty clear that a Trump presidency would be anything but isolationist The only thing that is clear about a Trump presidency is that nothing is clear about a Trump presidency.
  - gallonofmilk 10y ago
    winning... winning is clear.
    - omonra 10y ago
      The only other clear thing is that Trump would be President.
- colmvp 10y ago
  Well it's a bit more nuanced. He was for the war prior to when it started but then changed his tune fairly soon after it started, even before Saddam was caught. I'm not sure where he truly stands. But I suppose I'll take his word that he'll want the U.S. to play an active role. Democrats decided to nominate the candidate who voted for the war and has a very Hawkish foreign policy, not the one who was against it. So one way or another, Americans are voting for interventionism.
wfo 10y ago
Perhaps out of all the morally reprehensible positions completely at odds with the notion of a free modern society Trump has espoused at one time or another, his intention to crack down on free speech by making it easier to sue those who disagree with you I think is often overlooked. It is not as flashy as the abuse and bigotry towards every non white-male group under the sun, encouragement of political violence, advocacy of war crimes, torture, the wholehearted embrace of nationalistic fascism, etc. But recall Thiel was recently in the news for financing the lawsuit that destroyed Gawker as part of a personal vendetta. If Trump had his way, Thiel would likely be able to simply sue them out of existence because he wanted to and was wealthy -- instead of waiting for them to do something illegal and helping to support the resulting lawsuit. Perhaps the answer is not so strange. Thiel is wealthy and powerful and likes to use that power to reform the world around him as he sees fit, and sees voting for a wealthy and powerful person who wishes to give the wealthy and powerful more power will help to further his ends.
return0 10y ago
One could say he knows he 's an opportunist and willingly projects this image. People of all persuasions can project on him a hope of 'disruption', knowing that what he says now has little chance to be followed by actions. His (unlikely) win would create an open playing field for all kinds of unconventional choices (given that he doesn't really owe a debt to his own party). In contrast his opponent is way more predictable but also very largely unlikeable.

by bko 10y ago

falsestprophet 10y ago

Thiel has opposed mass [1] immigration to the United States which should not be mistaken with opposition to all immigration. For context, only 15% of new lawful permanent residents in 2014 were selected for education or skill (the employment-preference category). [1] like (but not limited to) anyone who likes strolling over the border or overstaying visas

vkou 10y ago
The net immigration rate to the US is 0.38%. That's hardly 'mass immigration.' I take it that means he's happy with the status quo? And, if not, when is he going back to Germany?
- falsestprophet 10y ago
  10% of the California workforce is undocumented 5% of the national workforce is undocumented
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - vkou 10y ago
    ... 5% of the working age population, accumulated over the span of decades isn't massive. The fabric of civil society isn't about to unravel.
- winter_blue 10y ago
  Yes, most people don't realize that the U.S. actually has a super low 0.38% immigrate rate. It's truly extreme xenophobia and racism that these liars who falsely claim "mass immigration" can't tolerate the tiny 0.38% that comes to the U.S. every year. They see a few immigrants in their neighborhoods, and their blood immediately starts to boil, and they get filled up with loathing and hatred. They are total hypocrites, who ignore that most of their ancestors came here in the last 200 years[2], and a disgrace to this country and its immigrant heritage. I hypothesize that there would no complaining if 100% of the immigrants who came here were white Europeans. At the root, it's not about immigration -- it's just plain racism. [1] As Sam Altman of Y Combinator aptly put it: "most Americans saying no immigration are here because their families immigrated in the last 200 years", c.f. https://twitter.com/sama/status/550110475199848448 https://twitter.com/sama/status/550110475199848448
  - randothrowaway 10y ago
    >They are total hypocrites Maybe they are angry because people are coming illegally.
    - vkou 10y ago
      You're right - a descendant of French immigrants has quite the leg to stand on. After all, his great-grandparents legally entered the country... At the time when undesirables, like Chinese, Indians, and the Polish were barred from entry. But at least the Frenchmen came legally! Sure, entry was granted under an extremely racist immigration law, but the legality is what gives him the moral high ground to stand on.
      - randothrowaway 10y ago
        Under your rational then you should be pro building a wall as currently illegal immigration is a default "racist" policy that encourages those from central America while discriminating against Indians and Chinese. Build the wall and regulate immigration so more Indians and Chinese come relative to their world population.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  1 out of 8 people in the US are immigrants. That's the highest it's ever been in recent history. And more than enough to have a big effect on the economy.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
bko 10y ago
> The billionaire tech investor has been a staunch opponent of immigration. Back in 2008, Gawker found that Thiel had donated $1 million to NumbersUSA, an anti-immigration group that has consistently been labelled racist and a firm fan of active population control. ... > He then invested in the SeaSteading Institute which wanted to turn Thiel’s dream into a reality. The reason? He felt the government wasn’t doing enough to keep Silicon Valley stocked with foreign talent. [0] Some mixed messaging here... [0] http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/05/10/shouldnt-surprised-peter-thiels-secret-crush-donald-trump/#gref http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/05/10/shouldnt-surprised-...
- bruceb 10y ago
  It isn't you are just changing the mix of who is coming. One could argue that decrease low skilled immigration and upping higher skilled immigration would boost those at the bottom. Raising wages at the bottom while reducing the price of some more complex services.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - bko 10y ago
    I guess it's under the whole idea the immigration drives down wages. It's likely true that it does drive down wages for certain individuals but the net impact is at worse break even. Wages are an expense after-all, and if you cut the expense and prices go down, everyone benefits by at least the amount that the price had dropped. Some lose out by losing their job so their losses would be offset by the gains of others by having lower prices. This ignores the fact that more people are buying the product at the lower price. And this also assumes that markets are competitive and that the company can't just continue to charge the same price and pocket the difference, which I don't think is unreasonable in a competitive market economy. So the many get lower prices, and pay taxes that compensate the concentrated few that are affected by the job losses or lower wages.
    - Houshalter 10y ago
throwaway13337 10y ago
As some of the siblings point out, it seems like a contradiction that he complains about the lack of tech workers but also is against mass immigration. These aren't actually opposing when you look deeper - the US does not provide much of a means of legal immigration for high skilled worker. On the other hand, the US also does not restrict illegal immigration so much - it's easy to get a menial job, a driver's license, just about everything without a legal visa status. In essence, you have a defacto second class citizen type immigration with a very limited first class immigration ability of the US. Probably this is the opposite of what would benefit the country most.
vkou 10y ago
Illegal immigration is not mass immigration. This is dog-whistle politics, that conveniently conflates opposition to something illegal, with something very appealing to xenophobes.

tstactplsignore 10y ago

>He may agree with more non-interventionist/isolationist foreign policy of Trump There's really not any good evidence that Trump would do anything of the sort. He was for the wars in Iraq and Libya at the time, and is only against them now (and pretends he always was) because he's the ultimate political opportunist. Considering that right now he's said that he will "bomb the shit" out of ISIS and "send a few troops", it's pretty clear that a Trump presidency would be anything but isolationist.

lisper 10y ago
> it's pretty clear that a Trump presidency would be anything but isolationist The only thing that is clear about a Trump presidency is that nothing is clear about a Trump presidency.
- gallonofmilk 10y ago
  winning... winning is clear.
  - omonra 10y ago
    The only other clear thing is that Trump would be President.
colmvp 10y ago
Well it's a bit more nuanced. He was for the war prior to when it started but then changed his tune fairly soon after it started, even before Saddam was caught. I'm not sure where he truly stands. But I suppose I'll take his word that he'll want the U.S. to play an active role. Democrats decided to nominate the candidate who voted for the war and has a very Hawkish foreign policy, not the one who was against it. So one way or another, Americans are voting for interventionism.

wfo 10y ago

Perhaps out of all the morally reprehensible positions completely at odds with the notion of a free modern society Trump has espoused at one time or another, his intention to crack down on free speech by making it easier to sue those who disagree with you I think is often overlooked. It is not as flashy as the abuse and bigotry towards every non white-male group under the sun, encouragement of political violence, advocacy of war crimes, torture, the wholehearted embrace of nationalistic fascism, etc. But recall Thiel was recently in the news for financing the lawsuit that destroyed Gawker as part of a personal vendetta. If Trump had his way, Thiel would likely be able to simply sue them out of existence because he wanted to and was wealthy -- instead of waiting for them to do something illegal and helping to support the resulting lawsuit. Perhaps the answer is not so strange. Thiel is wealthy and powerful and likes to use that power to reform the world around him as he sees fit, and sees voting for a wealthy and powerful person who wishes to give the wealthy and powerful more power will help to further his ends.

return0 10y ago

One could say he knows he 's an opportunist and willingly projects this image. People of all persuasions can project on him a hope of 'disruption', knowing that what he says now has little chance to be followed by actions. His (unlikely) win would create an open playing field for all kinds of unconventional choices (given that he doesn't really owe a debt to his own party). In contrast his opponent is way more predictable but also very largely unlikeable.