“Maybe I do always have this background program running where I’m trying to think of, ‘O.K., what’s the opposite of what you’re saying?’ and then I’ll try that,” he says. “It works surprisingly often.” " -- That clearly provides more context in that Theil was trying to demonstrate his contrarian mindset.
How does this mindset influence your interpretation of his statement that a nonzero amount of corruption is good because otherwise things are "too boring"? To me, the preceding paragraphs seem to only confuse his intent -- it makes it sound like he could either be not taking the conversation seriously, or saying that he really does think that some corruption is a good thing.
a "roving bandit" only has the incentive to steal and destroy, whilst a "stationary bandit"—a tyrant—has an incentive to encourage some degree of economic success
The same point could be made for having no interest vs having a conflict of interest.
By the way, if you think becoming a close advisor to a new president is unimpressive then I'd like to know what would impress you!
No journalist would just change topic after hearing this. It's a very controversial and ambiguous statement, and Thiel must have elaborated a great deal on it. But there is no further mention of any of that in the article.
So I think it's contextually possible that they just moved on after Thiel's response.