Comment by gdubs | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gdubs | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I've always thought of it in terms of asymmetric risk – something Thiel seems to have a preternatural intuition for. In other words, what he stood to gain with a Trump win far outweighed what he stood to lose with a Trump loss. Most business leaders were throwing in with Clinton. If Thiel had done the same, and Clinton won, he'd be one voice in a crowded field. By being one of the few to publicly back Trump, he all but guaranteed a prime seat at the table. This is exactly what played out post-election, with Thiel ushering in tech leaders in the lobby of Trump Tower.

Had Trump lost, Thiel would have probably diminished his standing with the Clinton administration significantly. But, due to the crowded field, it would have been a small standing to begin with.

And here's the crux: Thiel has held controversial opinions for a while. He probably figured his association with Trump wouldn't really move the dial on his likability much, and he seems to enjoy being contrarian anyway.

So, anyway, there's my theory. Risk asymmetry. A lot to gain in the event of a Trump win, little to lose in the event of a Trump loss.

I don't think thiel and palantir would have lost that much if Clinton won. If the bulk of palantir revenue comes from DoD and intelligence community (IC) contracts, he cares about whoever will increase the DoD budget in general. No matter whether it is Bush or Trump or Reagan, a republican president almost always increases defense and IC spending and green lights new toys for them to play with. Defense contractors who don't care about Democrat or republican ideology simply care about their bottom line.

True that the Republicans usually increase defense/IC spending, but the Democrats support them just as much. Feinstein is almost always pro IC operations. Clinton pushed for US involvement in Libya and Syria, and in a speech before the Democratic Convention was sabre rattling at China. Clinton also, according to Seymour Hersh, was aware of CIA gun running operations out of the US consulate in Benghazi. Obama's support for DoD/IC activities should be common knowledge.

Not making a partisan argument, as I don't affiliate with either party, just stating that both sides exhibit support for DoD/IC activities and both were likely to support equal, if not increased, levels of spending on them

Probably the biggest recent example would be the size of the DoD budget shrink during 8 years of Clinton:

https://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+presidency+dod+budge...

And then the massive DoD budget increases under Bush, post 9/11 and Afghanistan/Iraq related which kept a lot of large and medium sized defense contractors riding the gravy train for a very long time.

As best I can remember Obama did not significantly shrink the DoD budget as a whole, though it did drop a bit from the 2006-2007 peak under Bush, though some programs were cancelled.

I have a simpler thesis. Is it possible that Thiel isn't particularly brilliant about politics? I mean I realize that he's rich and therefore he has to be smart about everything, but... maybe this isn't his field?

It could be that, like many right-wingers or libertarians, he saw in Trump an opportunity to break with the status quo and had the vague impression he'd get the things he wanted, or could manipulate Trump in the right direction.

But has Thiel personally profited in any way from this? He's reviled in Silicon Valley, and the Trump association hasn't obviously brought him anything new.

Have Thiel's ideological priorities been satisfied? He's known for being a hard libertarian, and he supported a man who was openly nativist and who has implemented tariffs. Failure on that score.

Thiel seems like a fairly callous person when it comes to race (as a student, he backed apartheid[1]). Trump may be more aligned with him there.

[1] https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/my-conversation-with-pete...

An analogy to this is why "bad boys" tend to do well at the dating game....

A Biker/Gang Member may not be attractive to most people, but to the portion of the population that prefer someone like that, they have much fewer anti-social males to choose from, and those individuals can do well at the bar.

Or in Thiel's own(?) words: "Competition is for losers"

Yea this is spot on and the pattern of probing the opposite argument for possible pay off is a classic contrarian move.

I'm going d

Am I the only one who thinks Thiel was just being true to his Libertarian views and wanted to, in his words, make the US Govt more humble?

> Am I the only one who thinks Thiel was just being true to his Libertarian views and wanted to

Given Trump's blatant admiration for authoritarians and authoritarianism, I'm skeptical that Thiel's support had anything to do with libertarianism.

Indeed, given Thiel's founding and constant promotion of Palantir (which feeds at the trough of the military-industrial complex and government contracts), I'm skeptical that he makes many life decisions based on libertarian principles.

Thiel is not a true Libertarian. But he does like to disrupt the system. That is why he did PayPal and funded micronations.

But was he a true Scotsman?

Yes, he's very disruptive. What a compliment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com