Peter Thiel's Rise to Wealth and Libertarian Futurism

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_packer?currentPage=all

by vrikhter • 14 years ago

106 102 14 years ago

newyorker.com

revelation• 14 years ago

Article from 2011. If you are more of a hard facts type of person, Wikipedia has the details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarium_Capital

lps41• 14 years ago

I find his company's investment record eerily aligned with Francisco D'Anconia, of Atlas Shrugged. Unintentional, I'm sure, though I wouldn't be surprised if he noticed it himself and proclaims the parallel loudly among his peers.

joshuahedlund• 14 years ago

How many digits does the number 125100 have? Two hundred and ten.

They mean 125^100.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=125%5E100

tocomment• 14 years ago

I counted six digits in 125,100. Am I too dumb for this game?

pbreit• 14 years ago

I suspect in the magazine it was printed properly as 125 to the 100th power.

dxbydt• 14 years ago

In Indian high schools, you are supposed to memorize a ton of "useless" shit like atomic weights of 50+ elements in the periodic table, logs upto 20, exponentials, factorials, avogardo constant & tons of physics constants like g and speed of light & sound & diffraction constants & the like. So from the age of 12,I happen to know that log 5 is 0.7 Ergo, log(125^100) = 300log(5) = 210, hence 210 digits in 125^100.

But I do wonder - do schoolkids these days memorize this trivia or do they just reach for a calculator/wikipedia ?

vecinu• 14 years ago

I would argue that memorization for a lot of 'useless' constants is in fact, useless. We had the same curriculum in Romania during the communist era, where Ceausescu forced everyone to memorize as many trigonometric functions as possible and physics constants.

I personally don't see the need for memorizing items I will not use more than once. It clogs my brain and impedes my memory.

godarderik• 14 years ago

Current high schooler in the US here. I feel that today the trend is definitely more towards looking things up as opposed to memorizing them. For example, in my chemistry class, we always got a periodic table (with weights) and were given things like Planck's constant. We did, however, have to memorize some of the more basic ones such as speed of light and Avogadro's number. With regards to math, all tests involving more than trivial amounts of math you get a calculator, so I have never even thought of memorizing logs or exponents.

daniel-cussen• 14 years ago

Try wolfram alpha/siri for that one. No way they'd figure out how to do it on a calculator.

Having said that I kind of envy your Indian schooling, that's some important information right there, and I've learned a lot of it over time for my own projects.

K2h• 14 years ago

thanks, I was super confused. all I figured was that 'One hundred twenty five thousand one hundred' has 44 characters with spaces, and was about to start ascii conversion of the string. you saved me.

calinet64• 14 years ago

"I asked what the poles of the oscillation were. “It’s uh—it’s the, uh—it’s the—it’s um—it’s probably, uh—it’s probably just that it’s not that—well, the pro-seat-belt argument is that it’s safer, and the anti-seat-belt argument is that if you know that it’s not as safe you’ll be a more careful driver.” He made a left turn and fastened his seat belt. “Empirically, it’s actually the safest if you wear a seat belt and are careful at the same time, so I’m not even going to try to debate this point.”"

This theoretical-dichotomy-interrupted-by-empirical-reality is the hilariously false core of libertarianism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities.

DanielBMarkham• 14 years ago

"They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities."

First, this is a blanket ad hominem about an entire group of people. Second, it's bullshit.

There's nothing wrong with being a pragmatic libertarian. In fact, that's the way it's supposed to work. It's the purists on all sides of issues that present the most problems for civil discourse. Yes, you can find lots of crazy talk in libertarian circles: people owning their own nuclear bombs and such. But hell, you can find a lot of crazy talk in any political movement -- it becomes a matter of whether you are looking for reasons to dis-empower an entire group or not. This type of "people of political group X _say_ this thing, but when push comes to shove they're really like this" can be applied to any group you'd like. It's completely generic. Arguments like this have no value except as an attempt to persuade listeners not to hear what somebody is saying.

If I could downvote you a dozen times I would. People of all political persuasions are generally intelligent, well-meaning, and acting on the world as best as they understand it. Why not try to treat them that way? We don't need to assume they're unused to practicality or intelligent observation and reflection simply because their opinions are divergent from our own.

qdog6• 14 years ago

Most people I've met who claim to be Libertarians seems to be very confused about how the world works. Usually, they have a pet idea (guns, pot, taxes, property rights, police forces, something) they are very hot about and fail to extend their logic out to the endpoint, ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals (I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life).

There might be some enlightened Libertarians out there sure, but I haven't met one that I can recall.

Btw, I'm a Federalist. Zombie Washington/Hamilton in 2012!

leot2• 14 years ago

Generalizations have their place. A big problem many have with right-wing libertarians is that, unlike other political philosophies, libertarianism seems more like an elaborate, and status-reinforcing, justification for one's own socioeconomic position.

To believe otherwise -- i.e., to believe that merit is largely a fiction, albeit a highly adaptive one -- would mean giving up far too much.

Retric• 14 years ago

The problem with saying your a pragmatic X is X becomes meaningless, your just pragmatic 98% of the time. It's only the 'meaningless' edge cases where you revert to whatever X is. See: How the 'communist party' deals with the Chinese economy.

PS: For a US example compare how law enforcement deals with impoverished areas vs wealthy areas in the same state.

dantheman• 14 years ago

The libertarian argument against seat belt legislation is that it was pre-optimization. We are locked into a design, and there is very little experimentation. By deviating from the bare minimum you expose yourself to risk.

MaxGabriel• 14 years ago

I don't think that paragraph has anything to do with libertarianism. It's about whether you should wear your seat belt or not. On one side are the safety improvements, on the other is the Peltzman effect (that safety improvements cause us to act more dangerously). Thiel is debating with himself because the most rational option (seat belt+careful) may not be the most pragmatic (because in practice he will still be less careful).

In general I think arguments about the Peltzman effect in transportation are not that convincing.

If they were discussing the requirement to wear seat belts by the government/the requirement to add them to cars, Thiel would have responded quite differently.

edit, grammar mistake.

Florin_Andrei3• 14 years ago

> the hilariously false core of libertarianism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities.

Also, most of these hardcore libertarians seem to be, basically, robots. They are people from a biologic standpoint, but lacking humanity. If you're asking yourself right now "what the hell does he mean", you're likely one of them, or pretty close. There's no point in clarifying it, it's like describing the color red to a blind person.

The article does confirm the stereotypical image of the libertarian-as-a-robot.

calinet64• 14 years ago

This is anecdotal, but the one hardcore libertarian I knew fit this stereotype perfectly.

We all have varying degrees of empathy and ability to understand and act on the intentions and emotions of others, but those of us who are on the lowest end of the empathy scale tend toward libertarian ideals. It is no coincidence.

pemulis• 14 years ago

Saying that people who disagree with you politically must be mentally ill is ignorant and obnoxious. You follow it up by saying "there's no point in clarifying it" because there's no way you could possibly defend your opinion. If you assume your political opponents are crazy, there's no need to try to understand them. They're just cold, unthinking, unfeeling robots, right? Or they're Looney Toons, they have no grounding in reality, right? If that's the case, debating them is pointless, and there's no need to consider challenges to your own viewpoint. Assuming that people who think differently are crazy is just a way to justify intellectual laziness.

And you think the problem with libertarians is that they don't have any empathy? You're brushing aside millions of people as "basically robots" and "lacking humanity" because they have different opinions than you.

cpher2• 14 years ago

This theoretical-dichotomy-interrupted-by-empirical-reality is the hilariously false core of socialism. They're a class of abstract thinkers stuck in an imperfect world where their theories will always be unapologetically shattered by complex and unpredictable realities.

FTFY.

calinet64• 14 years ago

Could not agree more.

A world does not exist where either of these extreme models are true.

chrismealy• 14 years ago

And no girls:

http://gawker.com/5231390/facebook-backer-wishes-women-could...

TimPC2• 14 years ago

It's good press to put inflammatory words in someones mouth. It's a far step from suggesting a causal link between two constituencies and what Thiel views as political regress and advocating the disenfranchisement of women. In fact, Thiel doesn't, he advocates the abandonment of politics as the vehicle for solving problems, which is something quite different.

tomjen32• 14 years ago

Thiel is arguing, congruently with the facts, that females are more likely than males to vote for a larger government and a bigger social safety net and you believe that nobody has the right to take others stuff (through taxes) then it is understandable that he would prefer they didn't have the right to vote.

I don't think anyone ought to have the right to vote, except on matters of the military (which cannot work if it was subjected to market forces) -- the rest is just giving groups the right to do things individuals can't.

TimPC2• 14 years ago

Thiel identifies the issue. There is a big difference between identifying an issue, and suggesting a proposed solution.

I can identify the fact that people die in car crashes, and this in no way makes it understandable that I would prefer cars not exist (for the record I don't).

makomk• 14 years ago

Yeah, women have a really annoying habit of realising that the world doesn't quite work the way that libertarians like Thiel think it does. For example, no matter how good they'd be at jobs like CEO, they're still at a disadvantage to men because the people who do the selection are other men who naturally favour people like themselves. The market doesn't penalize them for this either - the people that invest in them and write reports for investors and make loan decisions? Almost all men who think in the same way.

praxeologist4• 14 years ago

>except on matters of the military (which cannot work if it was subjected to market forces)

Why? This is a huge subject and text to dump on you, so sorry about this:

http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

potatolicious• 14 years ago

> "then it is understandable that he would prefer they didn't have the right to vote."

Woah, that's a big leap. I disagree vehemently with pretty much every stance of the American religious right, but I wouldn't dream of depriving their free speech rights or their right to vote for whoever they damn well please.

Disagreeing with someone and condoning their muzzling are two entirely different levels.

It's funny that, further up the thread, someone suggested than Libertarian arguments against the seatbelt center around the notion that, once legislated, nothing potentially better than the seatbelt could ever be tried, thanks to the heavy hand of government. It's egregiously incongruent to hear that argument, and hear another that suggests the permanent muzzling of 50% of the population would lead to a better world.

valencourt• 14 years ago

Did he ever explicitly write that he would deny women the right to vote?

I don't think he did. Gawker is terribly sensationalist.

qdog6• 14 years ago

That article read like The Great Gatsby, I gave up after a few paragraphs. I don't think I'm into idolizing rich people anymore, I probably would have devoured this in high school, though.

jsnk• 14 years ago

What is it about a person being rich that bothers you?

qdog6• 14 years ago

People being rich doesn't bother me, reading fluffy New Yorker articles about them just doesn't interest me. Other people obviously enjoy it, but it doesn't really read like the kind of article I look for on HN, or even in the New Yorker.

Thiel's nose is bulbous? I needed to know that for some reason? It just read like a fawning article about some rich guy to me. The author met with Thiel in this fancy coffee shop, Thiel recently bought 2 multi-million dollar houses blah blah blah. Great, just not anything I personally care that much about.

ExpiredLink• 14 years ago

He is rich in terms of money but incredibly impoverished in his personal world view.

eli_gottlieb2• 14 years ago

Being rich is no problem. Acting like being rich means you're better than other people (or smarter, more hard-working, or even luckier, anything other than richer) is a huge problem, because it leads to a kind of economically-driven idolatry.

calinet64• 14 years ago

You cannot deny it carries with it certain effects and consequences, and debatably, pre-existing personality traits.

grandalf2• 14 years ago

The tone of this article is annoying b/c it assumes that the reader is (or should be) delighted to be a part of some large group of humans who are normal compared to the eccentric person being profiled.

bluekeybox• 14 years ago

I read this through Instapaper four days after this was posted to HN, and your comment pinpoints exactly the thing I didn't like about the article.

darrellsilver• 14 years ago

The author's follow up to this article a couple weeks later is pretty excellent. By some fluke of timing, the Thiel article was published shortly before a fantastic profile on Occupy Wall St.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2011/11/the-po...

mindcrime8• 14 years ago

Today, the sci-fi novels of the sixties feel like artifacts from a distant age. “One way you can describe the collapse of the idea of the future is the collapse of science fiction,” Thiel said. “Now it’s either about technology that doesn’t work or about technology that’s used in bad ways. The anthology of the top twenty-five sci-fi stories in 1970 was, like, ‘Me and my friend the robot went for a walk on the moon,’ and in 2008 it was, like, ‘The galaxy is run by a fundamentalist Islamic confederacy, and there are people who are hunting planets and killing them for fun.’"

You know, I think he's on to something there. Modern sci-fi really doesn't seem to have a whole lot left to say about potential advances in technology, and the tone does seem to have shifted away from the optimism of yesteryear. The best new scifi I've read lately was a post-apocalyptic zombie story trilogy, for crying out loud.

grandalf2• 14 years ago

What more is there to really aspire to? Virtual sex with an indiscernibly lifelike avatar of anyone we've ever met? Wall-E covered the utopian concept of robot-aided leisure pretty well.

His comment resonated with me as well. However I think there's a libertarian explanation for the decline of Utopian Sci-Fi. It existed out of a general optimism about problems too large for a ragtag group of individualists to solve. Space travel, etc., is the realm of big governments, and exploration of the universe is the stuff of political hegemony.

The real world has gone way beyond that to a place where Peter Thiel is wealthy enough to fund his own space explorations. The problem for Sci-fi is that market based approaches to solving problems are a lot less glamourous than those undertaken by the state. There is also (quite often) far less drama, a simple profit motive, and rather boring incremental progress.

State actions are always impossible to disconnect from the propaganda story accompanying them. Scientific advancement, often undertaken by governments solely for the purpose of warmaking, has been the locus of much propaganda, and it wasn't until the 50s were over that the nation started to get a clue.

That said I hope someone writes a story that proves me wrong.

mindcrime8• 14 years ago

What more is there to really aspire to? Virtual sex with an indiscernibly lifelike avatar of anyone we've ever met? Wall-E covered the utopian concept of robot-aided leisure pretty well.

You make a good point. Have we reached a point where we've already imagined all of the wonderful things we could possibly imagine? Well, vis-a-vis technological progress anyway. I don't know, but it is a bit disconcerting to see sci-fi seemingly no longer pushing the boundaries of what might be possible.

Klinky• 14 years ago

Not sure about your comments on public sector drama/propaganda. The startup & tech sector alone has it's fair share of propaganda & drama.

Facebook IPO. SpaceX. RelayRides & AirBnB liability concerns. Google & Apple taking over the world, etc...

Mizza• 14 years ago

> What more is there to really aspire to? Virtual sex with an indiscernibly lifelike avatar of anyone we've ever met? Wall-E covered the utopian concept of robot-aided leisure pretty well.

What a sad view of the world!

Artistic creativity is boundless.

DividesByZero• 14 years ago

I can understand how one might come to be a libertarian: through disillusionment with the government of the day, one comes to believe government itself is the problem rather than its particular form. The problem at the core of libertarianism is the slavish belief that the 'free market' is somehow guaranteed to produce results beneficial to society as a whole, or in the more sociopathic cases (which I suspect are the majority), benefit for themselves at the expense of others in a way that government cannot.

This argument neglects the fact that there does not exist any such beast as the 'free market' except in the platonic form - real transcational characteristics of goods and services, as well as the characteristics of the medium of exchange, always lead to a particular form of market emerging. Specifically, because of the fact that capital compounds capital - it is in the very nature of unregulated markets to concentrate resources in the hands of a few.

Why should we therefore be satisfied with 'free' markets that lead to enormous concentrations of resources in the hands of small numbers of individuals, far skewed away from the distributions of human ability according to measures of intelligence, aptitude or what have you? A market is a physical system to be engineered to produce the social outcome of most benefit. How you decide what is of 'most benefit' has some contention, but I'm pretty sure concentrating resources created by a majority in the hands of a minority is not it.

Peter Thiel's Rise to Wealth and Libertarian Futurism

Related Stories