Hacker News Reader

Comment by DrBazza | Hacker News Reader

The article is an attack on Peter Thiel, not SVB. Also seems thin on facts, and just "SVB is getting bailed out, and hence some rich guy stays rich". Given that both the Fed and the Bank of England have decades-old laws protecting the financial system long before (tech) billionaires, this article seems even more ridiculous.

Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman

> Today, the magazine is a print–digital hybrid. According to its present self-description, it has a liberal and progressive political position.[3] Jason Cowley, the magazine's editor, has described the New Statesman as a publication "of the left, for the left"[4] but also as "a political and literary magazine" with "sceptical" politics.

View on HN

> The article is an attack on Peter Thiel, not SVB.

I don’t understand this comment. The article doesn’t pretend to not be an attack on people like Thiel. It’s in the title. So what’s your point—is Thiel above criticism?

And since you imply that a publication somehow automatically loses credibility on this topic by leaning left, here’s a Financial Times opinion piece with a similar premise: https://archive.is/6MBEL

Not to speak for OP, but I think the point is obvious. Silicon Valley culture is liberal to progressive, not libertarian. That means more government intervention is the norm in the industry, not less. Thiel is more of an exception in that regard.

The entire premise that Silicon Valley has a libertarian culture is flawed, which is they the article can't back it up.

So my understanding is Silicon Valley programmers have a liberal to progressive culture, but the VCs that fund tech companies have the reputation of being libertarian. Thiel at least a is a noted libertarian.

The stereotype is that rich investors have these 'libertarian' ideals where they believe that, freed from burdensome taxes and living in a world where bailouts don't happen, they will invest wisely and create a tech utopia thanks to 'survival of the fittest' principles. However, people feel these rich investor types behave more along the lines of 'libertarian principles when we make money, socialism when we are losing money'.

I don't know the extent to that which is true but obviously when rich people have their money threatened it makes sense that they would want a bailout even according to their own 'principles' they shouldn't get it.

  > Thiel at least a is a noted libertarian.

I think the argument is he's one of the only ones. The claim that SV is a hotbed of libertarians isn't backed up by facts.

Peter Thiel is liberal to progressive?

I said he was an exception. The general culture of Silicon Valley is liberal to progressive. Thiel is a libertarian, which is uncommon in the industry.

Larry Ellison? Mark Zuckerberg? Elon Musk? Sam Altman? ...

I don't know enough about Altman to say one way or the other, but there is nothing Libertarian about the other 3. In fact, even Thiel is a stretch to call libertarian considering he donated to Trump who is the opposite of a libertarian.

Fair point. They don't really believe in anything but their own egos. Everything else espoused is in temporary service of their true dogma.

Thiel is the rare breed libertarian who has pondered on his ideology more than a couple of mins and beyond feel good freedom statements, saw that it will conduce to corporate fiefdom, and said: “hey, that looks nice”

I actually respect him a little more than the average libertarian just because of that.

Thiel is entitled to a lot of criticism, but this is dumbest possible criticism. If Thiel took his money out of SVB, then he didn't receive a bailout. That's 100% consistent with libertarianism. But then he's a hypocrite because he's a "tech bro" and some other "tech bros", who the article makes no effort to explain why they are libertarian, asked for bailouts.

Big and little L libertarianism are a constant target for some people on the left despite having near zero voting power or representation outside of individual ideology. I get exhausted with this kind of rhetoric but it's not atypical of the left or the right for that matter. It's also typical of just angry people with next to zero explanations for why their lives aren't as easy as their parents, so they opt for "let's smack libertarianism around a bit"

The FT is also a left leaning newspaper as it has had to increasingly post 'commentary' articles to stay relevant in the 2020s. Long gone are the days of its dull hard factual reporting that was of actual utility to London traders since the rise of the internet.

I had no 'point' other than to state that the article headline was misleading, the content was weak at best with sound bite quotes and zero context.

I referenced the wikipedia article so that non-UK readers have some context regarding the publication.

The FT is not a left leaning newspaper in the traditional economic sense, even if they are somewhat progressive on the social scale. Why would you characterise them as left? They're obviously pro-business, pro-free trade, anti-traditional social stuff (e.g. the pension reform in France is admired) and have done some great investigative journalism recently (Wirecard and Ukraine come to mind).

Theyre neoliberals. Hardly a better mold that fits them.

Don't split hairs, "progressive" and "left" are the same thing.

Progressive is more on the social axis, meanwhile left is applied for both social and economic ones. FT are somewhat socially progressive, but right on the economic axis.

Yes, using left/right instead of something like a radar/pizza chart for political leanings is extremely limited.

> since you imply that a publication somehow automatically loses credibility on this topic by leaning left

Funny how so many of the replies are shocked by this idea when virtually every single story posted to HN from a right leaning outlet is flooded with comments of the form "you can't trust this story, it comes from a right leaning outlet" and the post itself will often be quickly flagged to death. What goes around comes around.

I don't know what your last paragraph is supposed to imply. That there shouldn't be outlets for the Left? That there shouldn't be outlets with stated political positions at all? Or it's just a basic ad hominem?

Anyway, as for the substance: a bank had risky behaviour and lost out. Now everyone, including those who never did and never will benefit from that risk, are called to pick up the check. This is, objectively speaking, a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

Now you may justify that with trickle-down economics, but I'm not arguing that point, and neither is the writer. He is merely pointing out how the "leave free enterprise alone" crowd is now suddenly in favour of handouts :)

How does the "rich" steal what the poor do not have?

I think you meant to scare quote "steal," not rich. Otherwise this is a very elliptical argument.

> I don't know what your last paragraph is supposed to imply.

It's pointing out that the left hates libertarianism and Peter Thiel, leftism is literally the opposite of libertarianism, and so you would expect a left wing news outlet to try and trash Thiel and libertarians whether or not the argument makes any sense or whether it's actually their fault. It's a bias warning.

Not really though. It's worth pointing out that the original Liberartianism in the Sarte/French sense IS a left wing movement and closer to anarchism and would view the companies that American Libertarians love as another extension of authoritarian control that should be reduced or eliminated.

Corporate Libertarianism which seems to be the predominant modern one is very right wing though.

Yes, the only way someone could possibly disagree with the holy Word of Peter Thiel (swt) is because they're whatever caricature of a rabid communist you have in your mind.

> It's pointing out that the left hates libertarianism

It's worth pointing out that the word "libertarian" was coined for its namesake left-wing movement, what you might also call "anarcho-syndicalism", "mutualism", or similarly aligned ideologies. It's only since the 1960s that the word has been used as a synonym for ancap, and then mostly in the USA.

> That there shouldn't be outlets with stated political positions at all?

What a wonderful concept, a news organization that just spits dry facts and doesn’t spin at all. Kinda like Axios. We really should use AI to write unbiased news articles and fire all the journalists who can’t get rid of their biases. The world would overnight be a better place.

Absolute hn moment.

> a news organization that just spits dry facts and doesn’t spin at all

There's no such thing. Even the paragons of neutral and factual reporting, like AP or Reuters, do at the very list have an editorial bias on what they do and do not report, and in what detail.

> Kinda like Axios

Lol

> We really should use AI to write unbiased news articles and fire all the journalists who can’t get rid of their biases. The world would overnight be a better place.

Outstanding idea. Let's get rid of the ability of humans to present thoughts and opinions, and delegate that to chatbots controlled by some tech-bro's definition of "acceptable speech". Truly an inspired idea.

Are you a journalist by chance?

> Lol

What unique insight does this provide? Do you have counter evidence? Do you have a more neutral news site to use as evidence?

Oh please. You know exactly what the article is saying. You chose to attack the publication instead of their arguments which boils down to Thiel and friends are very much anti-regulation and if it wasn't their money they would resist government interference. Perhaps you could talk about the quoted comments from those billionaires and correct the article?

> Perhaps you could talk about the quoted comments

All the quotes are barely one sentence, and with zero context, and no link back to when or where they were said. I know modern journalism is lazy and just quotes tweets, but the author could have put a bit more effort in.

> when Zuckerberg came up with his mantra, “move fast and break things”, he didn’t just mean code.

> Thiel himself is so committed to libertarianism that he has established an eponymous foundation to “defend and promote freedom”

> Larry Page, the co-founder of Google, has previously suggested a “limit” on laws to “some set of pages”. “When you add a page, you have to take one away,” he said.

> “This is an extinction level event,” warned Garry Tan, the CEO of Y Combinator.

> “Where is [the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jay] Powell? Where is [the Treasury secretary, Janet] Yellen? Stop this crisis NOW,” tweeted the venture capitalist David Sacks

The article assumes an audience sophisticated and informed enough not to require extensive evidence that Peter Thiel is a libertarian, or that he and associated VCs are generally opposed to government regulation, because those assumed to be established facts. The quotes aren't intended to prove these facts, simply to provide a flavour of the types of rhetoric and attitude they have historically displayed.

So what exactly is your argument here? That Thiel and co. aren't libertarians? That they are generally pro-regulation and government bailouts? Or that the article's thesis is invalid simply because it didn't meet your standard of empirical representation, regardless of whether it's true or not?

The last one at least was literally just a Twitter post with no other context.

As far as I know, haven't seen any tweet/quote from Peter Theil asking for a bailout. Shouldn't the onus be on the article author to do more research on their primary target. Can't blame him for being friends with people who asked for it.

Wait, you want "of the left and for the left" "journalists" to do research?

haha

> Can't blame him for being friends with people who asked for it.

If he has not denounced those Libertarian friends, yes you can. If he has not lobbied the government with his disproportionate power and privilege to not socialize investment losses the way he has lobbied in the name of pro wealthy elite anti state "intervention" in the past, yes you can. It is an incongruity in values.

Thiel got his money out, where is he asking for bailouts? These techbros are imaginary characters invented for clicks and outage.

I agree he shouldn't have been the center piece of the article. Because I don't think he was calling for a bailout.

But there are alot of laws that favor tech and most of the tech billionaires take lots of credit for winning with a stacked deck. And call for less regulation.

- sales tax exemptions for ecommerce.

- green credits

- section 230

- lack of stricter anti trust

The author doesn't understand the topic or the event, and just picked a boogeyman who they perceive is a threat to their activism.

Section 230 was just a carve out in the mostly overturned Communications Decency Act to allow for moderation. It isn't special protection, it clarifies that for the purposes of some pearl clutching censorship laws that moderating and hosting comments doesn't incur the liability of having said or published the thing in question. The rest of that law was basically whole sale tossed out by the Supreme Court for being prior restraint on speech. Section 230 is a red herring pushed by know nothing culture warriors.

>Thiel and friends are very much anti-regulation

Anti-regulation on the business side, their political donations show they are very much into regulations when it comes to people and ideas that aren't "typical" and or "straight".

"straight" as in sexual orientation? That would be particularly ironic given that Peter Thiel is gay.

yep. He has donated 10+ million to various anti-gay politicians. He appears to think, most likely correctly, that his money will protect him.

Yeah, this is completely wrong. https://www.protocol.com/tech-company-pacs-2019-2020

"Official" donations from the companies split them 50/50 between the major parties while worker donations are almost 99% Democrat. SVB itself primarily donated to Democrats, despite it being maligned as "libertarian".

One can't be friends with a PAC. Thiel has donated 10+ million dollars to people who would treat those like himself as second class citizens as documented in the GOP political platforms.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/17/peter-thiel-senate-...

Same. I'm a veteran that's donated to (and votes, other than Libertarian) Democrat causes and organizations for a while. Some of us join a given thing to change it. The GOP also can't ignore Peter Theil's acumen, power, or money and frankly if he were to run on a left-Libertarian platform I doubt Democrats would treat him very well.

> to people who would treat those like himself as second class citizens

Sigh, when will the left learn this rhetoric only destroys the country, it doesn’t help them win more.

This rhetoric is based on the GOP platform which he supports. It is acceptable to judge people based on what they support is it not?

To what end? Do you believe you’re doing something good or bad? The result is the same however, we become more divided. Parent didn’t teach me anything, just that they’re politically intolerant. What good does this do for the country or does it only serve to divide us more?

Continuing to justify “judging” others only results in the destruction of the country. Political parties are the problem. You’ll change nothing though, that’s for sure.

> Given that both the Fed and the Bank of England have decades-old laws protecting the financial system long before (tech) billionaires, this article seems even more ridiculous.

Those laws don't insure deposits over $250,000. The response to SVB is relatively novel in some ways.

It's ok to point out this is a left wing magazine, but the "investigation results" pasting is over the top and just indicates potential lack of balance in the rest of the comment...

When you don’t have any facts on your side, you need to rely on innuendo and ad hominems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com