Peter Thiel will speak at GOP convention
theverge.com
theverge.com
I also wonder why there are still people who want to argue that there was literally no genuine news value in a media outlet outing a powerful billionaire who would personally and financially support a party that would put this on their platform, but I guess that's another story.
But Peter Thiel certainly was:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/peter-thiel-keith-rabois...
Anyway, Thiel isn't a Republican himself. As per Wiki, he's a Libertarian, from an Evangelical background.
I liked this link though, from 1995:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Stanford-President-Condem...
> Calling the multiculturalism movement "mindless," the piece argues that as "recycled anti-Western banalities substitute for a genuine study of Western and non- Western cultures, multiculturalism is effectively wasting some of the best years of America's brightest students." In some feminist studies courses, students were asked to write, but not necessarily send, letters to their parents about "coming out as a lesbian," said Sacks and Thiel.
> The two also criticized a class on the history of rights in the United States, saying it "was so busy extolling 1960s protests movements that the class never got around to studying the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution."
Have campus conservatives ever found anything new to complain about?
Regarding the Stanford incident, Gawker has the most fleshed out backstory: http://gawker.com/the-free-speech-peter-thiel-will-defend-fa...
Why do they need to find something new? If it's a stand on principles, then all they need is to point out disregard of principles. "Newness" misses the point and would appear to be a form of shallowness that feels entitled to novelty.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/08/rnc-chair-mehlman-ga...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/log-cabin-republicans-gop-par...
I assume you agree with every single thing anyone you vote for or support says, since that's the standard you're applying to him, then?
Seems like a fairly non-confusing standard to apply, your strawman argument notwithstanding.
You really need to distinguish between hate groups and groups that contain hateful people.
The KKK is a hate group. The Republican party is a group that contains hateful people. Using the same term for both is misleading.
The Republicans seem to waste a great deal of effort trying to fit the government into people's bedrooms, family life, and women's doctors offices for it to just be "a nice little diversion."
But, in the meantime:
National debt when Obama started (1/20/2009): $10.6T
National debt now: $19.4T
Almost doubled.
First, growth in the national debt under Obama has been comparable to that of the last 36 years of Republican presidencies. Obviously, you can't simply compare the raw numbers; depending on the metric you use, Obama is getting crushed by Reagan (who almost tripled the national debt), or is just outcompeting Bush. You can pick metrics in which Obama compares unfavorably to Bush and Reagan, or metrics in which he compares favorably, but from what I can tell, he's pretty much on par with every president for the last 36 years except for Clinton.
Second, Obama isn't responsible for a big chunk of that debt growth: it simply represents a continuation of crisis policy from Bush's administration in response to the collapse of 2008. It also captures Bush's disastrous tax cuts, a policy that Republican-controlled legislatures have ensured Obama was stuck with.
Third, the US GDP is ~17T. Our debt is just barely over 100% of GDP, within 10% of France, Canada, Singapore, and Belgium. As a percentage of GDP, it's not the highest its ever been, and the increase captures our response to the biggest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression.
Fourth, seen through the lens of the GDP, it's clear that there's two bad things that can happen to the debt: our total debt can grow, and our GDP can shrink. Money spent on the recovery is, again, a huge factor in the increased debt. That money was spent in large part to prevent an even more disastrous contraction in the economy. And, indeed, despite a relatively anemic recovery, we're doing a hell of a lot better than Europe did.
Finally, an important mitigating factor with our debt is the unique position we hold in the global financial system. Treasury yields remain at historic lows. The market seems unconcerned with the debt, and remains happy to finance us.
Unsurprisingly, you can't really evaluate the financial picture of the US by comparing two simple dollar numbers.
Not only that, but Federal expenditures to service the debt as a percentage of GDP have remained extremely low, lower than in the 80s and 90s [1]. It didn't even really rise that much from the Bush tax cuts and the financial crisis. By most measures then, the debt is relatively benign unless GDP starts taking a major nosedive.
obama's benefited massively from low interest rates (same service expense as bush jr. with twice the debt load). his deficits are a fantasy.
2. The debt has never been higher during peace-time (shot higher during WW2 and came down quickly)
3. The widely accepted red-alarm level of debt is 60% of GDP (some countries have "circuit breakers" around that level). Crowing that there are worse offenders out there does not change the fact that we are (fast) approaching disaster. Financial engineering is not working for Japan, you can't force people to take on more debt, even if it is cheap.
4. As you can see from the graph referenced, the US debt stayed around 60% of GDP since 1955-ish until 2008. Only after 2008 it started ballooning.
5. I am not saying Republican legislatures were saintly, Bush clearly put us through a lot of financial pain due to unnecesssary wars, but the numbers are clear (see the link below)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-deb...
Finland, Israel, The Netherlands, Brazil, India, Germany, Hungary, Austria, the UK, Canada, France, Singapore, Belgium, and Japan.
(I'm leaving out lots of smaller countries, of course).
But: once again: it is not my argument that there is no valid criticism of Obama's management of the economy and the financing of the government. I probably won't agree with most of those criticisms, but there are plenty of sound ones.
What I reject is the idea that you can compare the raw dollar amount of the debt in 2008 and that number in 2016 and draw those kinds of conclusions. No, you have to do better.
"The President doesn't have much control over the debt added during his first year in office. That's because the budget for that fiscal year was already set by the previous President."[1]
[0] http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/debt-gdp-president [1] http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-...
It's misleading to go from "Parents should be allowed to seek whatever treatment or therapy they deem fit for their children" to "Republicans are advocating gay conversion therapy", anyway. Not opposing something is not the same as advocating it.
The few people in the Democratic party who believe in homeopathy and UFOs are considered nut cases and marginalized -- it's not official dogma promoted by the leaders of the party and written into the official platform, the way conversion therapy and climate change denial and marriage inequality are part of the official Republican Party platform and ideology.
Don't be coy about the plausibly deniable wording. Everybody knows what the dog whistles signify.
Um... well... actually... https://psmag.com/why-is-hillary-clinton-making-strange-comm...
On this point at least you are mistaken; John Podesta is Clinton's campaign chairman and a pretty big UFO nut. He hasn't been marginalized at all.
I was responding with a counterexample to the quoted part of your statement: I thought that was rather clear.
Is it normal to reverse causality to make an argument?
[0] His commencement speech at Hamilton College https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id4ywg5oemc
Given BG's comment, wouldn't it make sense to use political influence as a leveraged means to improve society ?
pure evil.
I'm about as far from a libertarian as you can get, but I find this interesting! The combination of Trump's willingness to attack everything, and Thiel's ideas on disruption could put a lot of sacred cows up for debate. Regardless of what side you're on, that's not a bad thing. It forces the other side to articulate defenses of the status quo, instead of leaning on inertia.
Thiel says weird things like "Tell me something that's true that no one agrees with you on"
Which happens to fit the mold of a good startup.
It's also what crazy people think their bad ideas fit into.
The cognitive dissonance in the comments here, the desperate attempts to come up with conspiratorial rationalizations, is kind of ridiculous.
The man deserves to be taken at his word.
From what I've seen of Thiel, it's worth it to hear him out. He has a lot of good ideas. Some sound a bit out there perhaps, but he doesn't seem malicious or destructively polarizing.
- He wrote a paper on the fall of the Roman Empire [1] and thinks something similar could happen to the US.
- His fund 'Clarium Capital' bet on the fall of US dollar and lost a lot of money [2]
- He also stated that Hillary Clinton is going to win and be a one-term president, probably because the economic collapse is going to happen in few years [3]. He said "You kinda don't want to win 2016".
What do you think is behind his support for Trump? Does he want the economic armageddon to happen or not? Does he think that collapse is going to happen and that Trump is better at dealing with consequences than Hillary?
[1] http://bit.ly/2acARwG
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarium_Capital#Recent_performance_2008-2010
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxtXMlPSQAYProbably can't find a pokestop either... There was even an article written.
- The middle class has continued to get richer for about 40 years, moving up rather than down. That move up has caused the middle class to contract.
- US household assets are up by $27 trillion since the peak in 2006/2007. For comparison sake, that gain alone is equivalent to 2/3 of all the wealth in the EU.
- US household balance sheets have improved dramatically in the last six years. The household debt to income ratio has declined by a lot, home equity has continued to climb. This contrasts with most of the rest of the developed world, in which households have been rapidly accumulating vast amounts of debt (mostly on mortgage debt accumulation).
- Full-time job openings are near record highs.
- Full-time job employment is at a record high.
- Unemployment has plunged dramatically since the peak of the great recession, including on the U6. The U6 is back to a normal level for the last 30 years, and is back to where it was before the great recession.
- The labor force participation rate is finally climbing again. The majority of the losses suffered there were from retirement anyway.
- Wages have been growing modestly well for the last two years, after enough slack was removed from the labor pool.
- Manufacturing is near an all-time record high on output.
- US median net wealth is higher than Germany or Sweden.
- US median disposable incomes are the highest in the world outside of Switzerland.
- US GDP per capita is back to being #5 in the world (soon to be twice that of Japan by comparison, and ~40% higher than Germany), which is rather extraordinary given the issues the nation just went through.
Where's the evidence to support this inbound great collapse? The sole issue that stands out meaningfully is the national debt. That's only going to get easier to manage as rates on debt fall over the next several years. The US has vast spare taxing capacity that very few developed nations have, the US middle and upper-middle class is among the lowest taxed out of that group; the US rich could easily be taxed several points higher without it significantly impacting the economy.
Some people look at that map and think "look at all that income just being disposed of! Just think of what governments could do with all that cash!"
When household income is above $150k, married couples with roughly equal incomes to each other will pay more in taxes than if they were single. That is because the tax brackets for married couples are wider than for singles, but not twice as wide.
> Marriage taxation presents a "trilemma": An income
> tax cannot simultaneously maintain progressive
> marginal tax rates, an equal tax burden for all married
> couples with identical incomes ("couples equity"),
> and neutrality with respect to the tax burden of
> married versus unmarried couples ("marriage
> neutrality").
Much more interesting discussion: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
Its possible to reach that total tax rate, though even if you manage to have no dependents or other sources of deductions, credits, etc., it takes a lot of income, even for the Bay Area (like, the kind where you could, after those taxes, meet reasonable living expenses and buy a new Bay Area home, without selling the last one, for cash every decade or so.)
> There is no room to be taxed more
The maximum combined federal, state, and city taxes on income (including income and payroll taxes at all levels) in San Francisco is lower than the maximum federal income tax alone in the period of the US most rapid aggregate growth (and also the most rapid relative growth of the middle class.)
I live in NYC (also a very high tax location) and have a pretty decent income and my rate for 2015 was just over 40%. That includes Fed, State, City, FICA & tax preparation costs.
But when you trivialize the damage of high marginal taxes because the average rate is lower, you're wronger than both of them put together.
Also, I think your NYC numbers are still wrong since they seem to leave out sales tax. I know that for SF, a typical tech worker's state/federal taxes would be about 40%, and when you throw in the 10% sales tax health mandates, it's right about 45%.
Also ya, I left out sales tax (I don't have any precise records on my yearly sales tax expenditures. I suppose I could estimate). I also left out the employer side of FICA which is really a tax I'm paying. I also left out the % of my rent that goes to pay my landlord's property tax. I also left out corporate taxes I'm responsible for as an owner of stock in various public companies.
Truly calculating the total taxes that fall on me as an individual is probably impossible at some level. So I included the taxes that people commonly refer to when talking about "paying their taxes."
Why would you think sales tax is one such case? Is it really that difficult to back out how you don't have that 8-10% to spend? Does it really justify confidently telling someone they don't know their tax rate because they included it?
(FWIW, the "employer's" side should be included too but can be misleading in conventional contexts because you'd have to restate your pretax income to include that as well, when it is generally not understood to. But it's fairly characterized as part of your burden.)
Also not all of sales tax really falls on me. Some % falls on the provider of the goods in the form of lower prices. It depends on the price elasticity of the product in question. Taking this into account would only further complicate the question.
[1] I'm a very precise record keeper of my income taxes now after I screwed something up years ago which cost me $$$. I keep everything in a github repository. It's pretty awesome actually. Highly recommended!
That's true for all taxes, but not a reason to arbitrarily clip (only) one out and tell someone he's wrong for including it.
Tax incidence is fun!
Last year, interest payments on the national debt were 6% of our budget and only 1.3% of GDP -- a near record low.
And the US only has to pay interest of 2.2% a year on 30-year bonds. If average inflation over the next 30 years is greater than 2.2%, then the US will actual gain money in real terms for every dollar it borrows.
As you stated, the US has ample ability to service its debt; the 2011 S&P debt downgrade was due to questions on Congress' willingness to pay it.
I have thought about this very topic a little because I'm utterly flabbergasted that a book I like as well as Zero to One was written by a Trump delegate. So -- I may be cobbling together more of an excuse here than an explanation, if that's not obvious.
Also, in other Theil news, he gave a truly fantastic commencement speech this year at Hamilton college (the delivery is a little halting or stilted for sure, but honestly I think it's part of the charm): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id4ywg5oemc
To me, it's a reminder that people are complex. Peter Thiel is a remarkably lucid thinker, but he was openly homophobic when he was young, while in the closet! Ron Paul is probably the only political candidate I've ever learned anything from, but he also has a history of racism.
Even Trump is complex -- he's not just the arrogant, ignorant character he plays on TV. I found this piece in the NYTimes to be illuminating (sorry if it's a subscription link):
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/campaign-stops/...
Like Peter Thiel and Ron Paul, Trump has contradictions. He is both ignorant and accomplished. He says a lot of bigoted and sexist stuff, but he has also known to be been shrewd in cultivating gay and female executive leadership. It's been said that his best advocates are his children, and that's saying a lot when you compare them to their peers (other children with 3rd generation wealth).
Trump is tapping into a real need that the electorate has, which honestly NEITHER party has an answer for.
Trump probably doesn't have an answer for it either, but acknowledging it is the first step. Honestly, it's probably NOT irrational for lower middle class white men to vote for Trump (over Clinton, at least). I would argue that it was probably irrational for them to vote for Bush, since Bush didn't act in their interests.
As for why Thiel would support Trump, I'm mystified too. But what I would guess it's because he doesn't support either Democrats or the "establishment GOP", which Trump isn't a part of.
Thiel is a contrarian, and in tech social circles, Trump is the ultimate contrarian choice :)
May be it is the education provided by Ivana. Who also had the good sense of divorcing Trump.
This does seem to be a major reason why otherwise rational people are supporting him. I think it is incredibly short-sighted, and sometimes wonder if these people have thought it through much, but it is what it is.
This might be their way to say "See what happens when you ignore us?"
Someday we will hit peak oil? Duh? Someday the sun will burn out. The peak oil histeria from 5 or ten years ago was about the claim that we had already hit peak oil and pretty soon we wouldn't have enough petroleum to even grow food and we were all going to die. I had two friends having panic attacks over this BS.
Sorry reality failed to confirm your preferred political narrative in the past. Keep retconning and you can always think you were right
It may be the case that Thiel misinterpreted the economic consequences of peak oil and made bad bets based on it (particularly, there are no particular clear short-term market effects associated with peak oil beyond greater price volatility).
> The peak oil histeria from 5 or ten years ago was about the claim that we had already hit peak oil and pretty soon we wouldn't have enough petroleum to even grow food and we were all going to die.
The idea that the point that will be the peak in the smoothed long-term production curve is already past is not yet rejected, though there remains some doubt as to whether that point is in the recent past or not.
The idea that the peak would have any particularly clear set of clear short-term market consequences (and particularly anything like "we wouldn't have enough petroleum to even grow food" or "we were all going to die") has never been part of peak oil theory. Now, its clearly possible Thiel bought into some crazy idea like this secondary to peak oil theory, but that's a different issue than peak oil itself.
Anyone who thought that peak oil meant immediate real-world decline in availability of gasoline would be deluded. We have too much at stake in our oil-dependent system to let that happen. We'll screw with tax incentives and government systems and all sorts of crazy things and get at the hardest-to-get oil until we get way way way past the peak.
We probably will never hit the point of being on the far tail end of the oil curve because the pollution and climate mayhem will take over before that, so we'll have to stop burning all the oil for environmental reasons long before we run out of oil to burn. But that doesn't mean we haven't peaked our accessible, cheap oil options.
P.S. I have no clue about the voting here. I typically don't see downvote options, and I'm pretty sure you can't tell who downvoted you, so you seem to just be speculating.
Thiel isn't just "weird"; it should be pretty clear that he's out-and-out nuts, by this point.
At least he's being honest in conveying to us that not only does he not expect his sockpuppet candidate to win in 2016 - but that his ideology as a whole is essentially fatalistic; and that he needs some major catastrophe (in the form of either the economic collapse he's predicting; or of an actual Trump administration, which he's smart enough to realize would also be a major disaster) to bring about the sweeping, transformative change in global consciousness that he seeks -- the social chaos, ruined lives, and piles of corpses be damned.
Just like any megalomaniacal ideologue anywhere, since the beginning of time.
Thiel is responsible for his own pronouncements, ideological fantasies and desire for catastrophe.
There are some people, including a lot of us here on Hacker News, for whom a Trump administration wouldn't be that big of a deal. I'd hate it, but my day-to-day life probably wouldn't change all that much (unless he really goes off the deep end and starts a war, either the real kind or the trade kind, which can't be ruled out).
But there are a lot of people for whom a Trump administration would be a living hell. Those people have a right to be angry at Thiel's support of Trump without being treated to a "so what?! he's a smart mean of ideas and vision" lecture.
That's especially true when, as mentioned above, Thiel's support doesn't appear to be coming from a genuine belief that Trump is the right man for the job, but rather a hope that he will be such a disaster the country will fall apart, and that will ultimately result in the more widespread public support for Ayn Rand-style libertarianism that Thiel has been craving for so long. "Let's burn everything down and hope my preferred ideology springs from the ashes" is easy to support when you're rich and powerful enough to be unharmed by the "burning down" part, which Thiel is and most people are not.
Contempt for fellow citizens should not be a habit.
At the same time: in politics we occasionally do find there are truly bad actors; -- who don't just hold views we disagree with, or find distasteful; but who are basically out to push buttons and sow chaos (either with some greater goal in mind, or with chaos, and/or simple ego gratification in itself as the ultimate goal). And when this happens -- as it seems to be happening in the current U.S. election cycle -- it isn't uncivil (or even impolitic) to point this out.
It's simply a matter of stating the obvious -- and calling a spade a spade.
It's also not practical, in a globalized world, to have a ban on immigrants from Islamic countries. It would be financial suicide.
I think Trump is going to backtrack on both these promises, I think the Muslim ban is going to become a ban on "non approved" immigrants from Syria, Iraq and Yemen where there are major conflicts and he's probably going to backtrack on the Mexican issue claiming impracticability.
I mean really, it's not like anyone holds you the promises you make during primaries. I remember Trump also made a promise to shut down congress over the abortion issue (which is impossible for congress to overturn because it's been ruled a Constitutional right) and then just a few days later, I saw him on the news praising planned parenthood for the great work they do.
I think the guy is just playing to the crowd and saying what it takes to get the nomination. Trump seems to me to be one of those guys who is determined and will do what it takes to succeed at what he sets his mind to. I think a lot of his more radical statements during the Primaries is just election talk aimed at getting single issue republican voters to rally behind him (the Christian right over abortion, the nationalist right over immigration etc).
Also Theil is a huge pro-immigration advocate, I can't see him supporting an anti-immigration candidate .
Many people who do follow American politics closely disagree with this assessment of who stands to be "really adversely affected" by a Trump Presidency.
This is the craziest part to understand. Trump is about as libertarian as Hillary.