6 ms·

With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul

56 points by ca98am79 14y ago

leot 14y ago
Question: anyone know the largest risk, financially, that Thiel has recently taken?
- borism 14y ago
  Clarium Capital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarium_Capital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarium_Capital (directly related to his Ron Paul support)
  - Retric 14y ago
    Clarium's assets under management grew to $8 billion in 2008 after which a series of unprofitable investments and client redemptions resulted in its assets declining below $1 billion as of 2011 Ouch.
  - leot 14y ago
    Do we know how much of his own money was there?
Jach 14y ago
I was more interested in when Thiel talked about whether technology growth is decelerating. It was back in March, here's the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc
pgryff 14y ago
Stupid "bet" by Thiel. If he was truly thinking of the future, he'd be better off supporting Rand Paul not Ron. But a fool and his money...
- tedivm 14y ago
  If he loses 99% of his worth that "fool" will still be a millionaire with a ridiculous number of accomplishments. Disagreeing with you on politics doesn't seem like the best way to judge intelligence.
  - rudiger 14y ago
    Money isn't the best way to judge intelligence either.
- Mvandenbergh 14y ago
  Obviously he doesn't believe that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination. Only an imbecile would believe that and Thiel is not that. The point is that as long as Ron Paul is out there on the political flank of plausible candidates with a small committed support base, the more centrist candidates will tack towards his position to try and capture some of his support. Witness how Santorum pulled Romney towards more socially conservative positions just by existing. Santorum didn't win, but as a result of his run he pulled the Republican centre towards him.
  - borism 14y ago
    The point is that as long as Ron Paul is out there on the political flank of plausible candidates with a small committed support base, the more centrist candidates will tack towards his position to try and capture some of his support. do you have any example to support this claim? Ron Paul isn't running for the first time. Which of his positions got anywhere close to mainstream candidate's agenda previously? Witness how Santorum pulled Romney towards more socially conservative positions just by existing. Santorum was Romney's runner-up if not outrunning him during several moments.
    - tlianza 14y ago
      Here's a random example from one of the debates... http://vote4reason.com/2011/12/11/ron-paul-wins-iowa-abc-gop-debate-121011-according-to-online-polling/ http://vote4reason.com/2011/12/11/ron-paul-wins-iowa-abc-gop... "In closing, Rick Perry said he has most learned from Ron Paul’s effort to end the Federal Reserve, and why it matters." In later debates, Gingrich seemed to make similar moves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCC0vokYHnY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCC0vokYHnY Not saying Paul was completely transformative, but his take on the Federal Reserve which I think was largely considered "extreme" started to become more of a mainstream GOP topic.
dantheman 14y ago
"I believe we are in a world where innovation in stuff was outlawed. It was basically outlawed in the last 40 years — part of it was environmentalism, part of it was risk aversion," he says. "And all the engineering disciplines that had to do with stuff have basically been outlawed one by one."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- vannevar 14y ago
  As an engineer myself, this quote illustrates Thiel's ignorance of engineering progress over the past 40 years, and his disregard for the risks posed by industrial-scale experiments on the general public. People like him are precisely why we need environmental regulations in the first place, instead of simply relying on people's common sense and prudence.
  - dantheman 14y ago
    Neal Stephenson recently wrote an article on how being risk averse is limiting our progress: http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starvation http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starv... I think there are two sides to this, I want to see more innovation and am willing to live in a riskier world to see that happen faster. A lot of regulation merely locks in present bad forms, in the nuclear world we see that yucca mountain isn't perfect so instead we leave nuclear waste all around the country in "temporary pools" -- where the risk is much much higher that something bad can happen. Unfortunately, when people become risk averse the status quo dominates, I mean who can argue with "that's how it's always been done" vs "I took a chance and it didn't work out, but the status quo was unsustainable." We've unleashed a monster of bureaucracy that vastly limits the potential avenues of investigation. Feynman, has a great perspective - I got good at math and could do it fast, this means that when I wanted to try something the cost was low - a few minutes or an hour, whereas others it would take a day or two. This allowed me to investigate areas with low likelihood of success, and try out novel ideas. Some of his big discoveries were from that type of work. (paraphrased from memory - couldn't find the story, it's in one of his books. The problem is that we can directly measure the cost of an accident/disaster, but we don't correctly factor, imho, the cost of stuff that was never created.
mindcrime 14y ago
Dear Mr. Thiel: How about throw some money Gary Johnson's way? It's pretty clear that Ron Paul won't be winning the GOP nomination; but Governor Johnson will likely be on the ballot in all 50 states, as the Libertarian alternative to the major party hegemony. Thx, Mindcrime
- SkyMarshal 14y ago
  The problem with Gary Johnson is that when it comes to the financial crisis he's too close to the status quo. His position is that nobody did anything illegal, so no prosecutions, etc. That's demonstrably false, and the lack of S&L-like prosecutions is a symptom of governmental capture/crony capitalism, and its consequent moral hazard is something we'll paying for sooner or later. From that perspective, Ron Paul and/or Bill Still > Gary Johnson.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    From that perspective, Ron Paul and/or Bill Still > Gary Johnson. Yeah, but Gary Johnson > Mitt Romney & Barak Obama. And Johnson will (likely) be on the ballot in all 50 states, probably the only candidate other than Romney or Obama who can make that claim.
WiseWeasel 14y ago
I supported Paul last time around and was disappointed to discover he wasn't really serious about (or maybe simply not prepared for) winning the primary or having a significant impact on US politics at the expense of his political party. I got the feeling he was perfectly content to let his r3volution get hijacked by the Tea Party and used to suit the purposes of various politicians. The money I donated was not used to mount a serious campaign, but was instead appropriated for other use once the campaign was conceded. I ended up having to vote for Bob Barr. Bob Barr! Fool me twice, you're not gonna fool me again. Paul seems like a good guy, but he's doing more harm than good squandering all these resources that might be better spent on someone who's actually serious about running a viable campaign.
- luriel 14y ago
  I think the issues with the Paul campaign were more due to incompetence than malice. His management style is very hands off, and that means some of the people around him which are some times rather clueless or nutty end making a bit of a mess of things.
  - WiseWeasel 14y ago
    To me, it seems like he's along for the ride rather than leading anything. He's simply coasting on the momentum of his immutable ethos, and then riding the break from successive waves of the world crashing into it until each is expired. Money given to someone like that is probably wasted; Ron Paul is just going to keep being Ron Paul no matter how much money you throw at him.
- nextparadigms 14y ago
  His movement has quite a big impact in GOP right now. They are replacing people in local GOP parties with their own. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win now, whoever will be their candidate in 2016 or even for the next Congress elections, will have a very high chance of winning. You may or may not like the libertarian views, but I'd say they'd be a huge improvement to the current religious conservatives, the neo-conservatives who want more wars and bigger military budgets, and the general corruption within GOP.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
stevenj 14y ago
After reading the headline, and then first seeing Peter's picture in the article, I was expecting to read that he was going to be directly investing in Paul Graham and YC. Ha.
davidw 14y ago
Sorry, but political articles are "off topic".
adrianwaj 14y ago
How far will $2.5 million go anyway? How will it compare to say $5 or $15 million? Sounds like chicken feed to me (coming from him) ..especially now with the FB IPO a done deed. What amount (if any) to Paul would it take for him to get kicked off the Bilderberg steering committee?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

56 points by ca98am79 14y ago

leot 14y ago

Question: anyone know the largest risk, financially, that Thiel has recently taken?

borism 14y ago
Clarium Capital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarium_Capital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarium_Capital (directly related to his Ron Paul support)
- Retric 14y ago
  Clarium's assets under management grew to $8 billion in 2008 after which a series of unprofitable investments and client redemptions resulted in its assets declining below $1 billion as of 2011 Ouch.
- leot 14y ago
  Do we know how much of his own money was there?

Jach 14y ago

I was more interested in when Thiel talked about whether technology growth is decelerating. It was back in March, here's the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRrLyckg8Nc

pgryff 14y ago

Stupid "bet" by Thiel. If he was truly thinking of the future, he'd be better off supporting Rand Paul not Ron. But a fool and his money...

tedivm 14y ago
If he loses 99% of his worth that "fool" will still be a millionaire with a ridiculous number of accomplishments. Disagreeing with you on politics doesn't seem like the best way to judge intelligence.
- rudiger 14y ago
  Money isn't the best way to judge intelligence either.
Mvandenbergh 14y ago
Obviously he doesn't believe that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination. Only an imbecile would believe that and Thiel is not that. The point is that as long as Ron Paul is out there on the political flank of plausible candidates with a small committed support base, the more centrist candidates will tack towards his position to try and capture some of his support. Witness how Santorum pulled Romney towards more socially conservative positions just by existing. Santorum didn't win, but as a result of his run he pulled the Republican centre towards him.
- borism 14y ago
  The point is that as long as Ron Paul is out there on the political flank of plausible candidates with a small committed support base, the more centrist candidates will tack towards his position to try and capture some of his support. do you have any example to support this claim? Ron Paul isn't running for the first time. Which of his positions got anywhere close to mainstream candidate's agenda previously? Witness how Santorum pulled Romney towards more socially conservative positions just by existing. Santorum was Romney's runner-up if not outrunning him during several moments.
  - tlianza 14y ago
    Here's a random example from one of the debates... http://vote4reason.com/2011/12/11/ron-paul-wins-iowa-abc-gop-debate-121011-according-to-online-polling/ http://vote4reason.com/2011/12/11/ron-paul-wins-iowa-abc-gop... "In closing, Rick Perry said he has most learned from Ron Paul’s effort to end the Federal Reserve, and why it matters." In later debates, Gingrich seemed to make similar moves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCC0vokYHnY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCC0vokYHnY Not saying Paul was completely transformative, but his take on the Federal Reserve which I think was largely considered "extreme" started to become more of a mainstream GOP topic.

dantheman 14y ago

"I believe we are in a world where innovation in stuff was outlawed. It was basically outlawed in the last 40 years — part of it was environmentalism, part of it was risk aversion," he says. "And all the engineering disciplines that had to do with stuff have basically been outlawed one by one."

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
vannevar 14y ago
As an engineer myself, this quote illustrates Thiel's ignorance of engineering progress over the past 40 years, and his disregard for the risks posed by industrial-scale experiments on the general public. People like him are precisely why we need environmental regulations in the first place, instead of simply relying on people's common sense and prudence.
- dantheman 14y ago
  Neal Stephenson recently wrote an article on how being risk averse is limiting our progress: http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starvation http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starv... I think there are two sides to this, I want to see more innovation and am willing to live in a riskier world to see that happen faster. A lot of regulation merely locks in present bad forms, in the nuclear world we see that yucca mountain isn't perfect so instead we leave nuclear waste all around the country in "temporary pools" -- where the risk is much much higher that something bad can happen. Unfortunately, when people become risk averse the status quo dominates, I mean who can argue with "that's how it's always been done" vs "I took a chance and it didn't work out, but the status quo was unsustainable." We've unleashed a monster of bureaucracy that vastly limits the potential avenues of investigation. Feynman, has a great perspective - I got good at math and could do it fast, this means that when I wanted to try something the cost was low - a few minutes or an hour, whereas others it would take a day or two. This allowed me to investigate areas with low likelihood of success, and try out novel ideas. Some of his big discoveries were from that type of work. (paraphrased from memory - couldn't find the story, it's in one of his books. The problem is that we can directly measure the cost of an accident/disaster, but we don't correctly factor, imho, the cost of stuff that was never created.

mindcrime 14y ago

Dear Mr. Thiel: How about throw some money Gary Johnson's way? It's pretty clear that Ron Paul won't be winning the GOP nomination; but Governor Johnson will likely be on the ballot in all 50 states, as the Libertarian alternative to the major party hegemony. Thx, Mindcrime

SkyMarshal 14y ago
The problem with Gary Johnson is that when it comes to the financial crisis he's too close to the status quo. His position is that nobody did anything illegal, so no prosecutions, etc. That's demonstrably false, and the lack of S&L-like prosecutions is a symptom of governmental capture/crony capitalism, and its consequent moral hazard is something we'll paying for sooner or later. From that perspective, Ron Paul and/or Bill Still > Gary Johnson.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  From that perspective, Ron Paul and/or Bill Still > Gary Johnson. Yeah, but Gary Johnson > Mitt Romney & Barak Obama. And Johnson will (likely) be on the ballot in all 50 states, probably the only candidate other than Romney or Obama who can make that claim.

WiseWeasel 14y ago

I supported Paul last time around and was disappointed to discover he wasn't really serious about (or maybe simply not prepared for) winning the primary or having a significant impact on US politics at the expense of his political party. I got the feeling he was perfectly content to let his r3volution get hijacked by the Tea Party and used to suit the purposes of various politicians. The money I donated was not used to mount a serious campaign, but was instead appropriated for other use once the campaign was conceded. I ended up having to vote for Bob Barr. Bob Barr! Fool me twice, you're not gonna fool me again. Paul seems like a good guy, but he's doing more harm than good squandering all these resources that might be better spent on someone who's actually serious about running a viable campaign.

luriel 14y ago
I think the issues with the Paul campaign were more due to incompetence than malice. His management style is very hands off, and that means some of the people around him which are some times rather clueless or nutty end making a bit of a mess of things.
- WiseWeasel 14y ago
  To me, it seems like he's along for the ride rather than leading anything. He's simply coasting on the momentum of his immutable ethos, and then riding the break from successive waves of the world crashing into it until each is expired. Money given to someone like that is probably wasted; Ron Paul is just going to keep being Ron Paul no matter how much money you throw at him.
nextparadigms 14y ago
His movement has quite a big impact in GOP right now. They are replacing people in local GOP parties with their own. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win now, whoever will be their candidate in 2016 or even for the next Congress elections, will have a very high chance of winning. You may or may not like the libertarian views, but I'd say they'd be a huge improvement to the current religious conservatives, the neo-conservatives who want more wars and bigger military budgets, and the general corruption within GOP.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

stevenj 14y ago

After reading the headline, and then first seeing Peter's picture in the article, I was expecting to read that he was going to be directly investing in Paul Graham and YC. Ha.

davidw 14y ago

Sorry, but political articles are "off topic".

adrianwaj 14y ago

How far will $2.5 million go anyway? How will it compare to say $5 or $15 million? Sounds like chicken feed to me (coming from him) ..especially now with the FB IPO a done deed. What amount (if any) to Paul would it take for him to get kicked off the Bilderberg steering committee?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]