Magox Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Its not just that, as the founder of PayPal, president of the hedge fund Clarium Capital, managing partner of the venture-capital firm Founders Fund, and one of the early angel investors in Facebook, hes vastly and maddeningly wealthier than I am. I have met some people even richer than Thiel who turned out to be intellectually vacuous. Thiels pessimism is therefore unusual, as is his conservatism. He is an avowed libertarian, with a preference for Ron Paul among the Republican candidates. Yet he also retains a surprisingly strong belief in the capacity of government to promote technological advancesa belief more reminiscent of John F. Kennedys Camelot than todays Cato Institute. So it was appropriate that when I interviewed him recently it was in the main hall of Harvards Kennedy School of Government. Part of Thiels message is calculated to unnerve a liberal Harvard crowd. I ask him why he thought that for the past 30 years innovation has been so narrowly concentrated in technology and finance, with miserably little progress in, say, energy. Everything else is being regulated to death, he replies. From a libertarian perspective, with regulation we have become a much more risk-averse society. However, when it comes to questions about health care, nuclear power, and education, Thiel readily concedes that government has a role to playjust not the one it plays today. As he puts it: If Einstein sent a letter to the White House today, it would get lost in the mailroom and be treated as a joke. In the late 1960s, Kennedy focused on the space program and didnt dedicate money to health care. Can you imagine the government doing that today? This is a key insight. World War II and the Cold War incentivized the federal government to force the pace of scientific innovation, nowhere more obviously than in the realm of nuclear technology. But as the totalitarian threat waned and then expired, government turned from research and development to health and safety. Redistribution and regulation took over and, as they did so, the sci-fi dreams of the 1960s faded into a stagflationary reality. In 1964, when I was born, Popular Science magazine could seriously ask: Wholl Fly You at 2,000 m.p.h.? Instead, I have lived to see the Concorde decommissioned and coal-carrying railroads reopened. We arent moving faster. We havent freed ourselves from fossil fuels. Life expectancy still rises, but at a slowing rate. Only in Palo Altothe realm of Moores law on the recurrent doubling of computer processing powerhas progress persisted. The rest of us have had to rely on leverage, aided and abetted with financial technology, to maintain the illusion of rising real incomes. As for globalization, it just took established Western ways of making stuff and spread them to the East and South. Worse, when leverage combined with globalization to produce a massive financial crash, we fell back on Keynesian deficits plus money printing in the mistaken belief that they had saved us before. They hadnt. It was technological innovation, accelerated by government, that produced the economic miracles of the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. To listen to Thiel is to hear an alternative economic history of the past hundred years. It is also to hear a rather bleak prophecy about the next hundred. He and his friends will continue to innovate, no doubt; but they will focus their energies on the few relatively unregulated sectors. The rest of us will remain mired in a stagnant politicized economy of regulation and redistribution, vainly trying to divert a fraction of the innovators billions our way. Shades of Ayn Rand? I really can't find anything in here that I disagree with. Niall Ferguson is a professor of history at Harvard University. He is also a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford University, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His Latest book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, has just been published by Penguin Press. Linky thingy Edited February 14, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 In the late 1960s, Kennedy focused on the space program and didn’t dedicate money to health care. Can you imagine the government doing that today?” Interesting observation, considering NASA's only long-term and most successful program - Mars exploration - just had their budget annihilated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Shades of Ayn Rand? I really can't find anything in here that I disagree with. How about a linky thingy to keep SDS in good graces with the law & decency to the author? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 How about a linky thingy to keep SDS in good graces with the law & decency to the author? I'm actually a big fan of Niall Ferguson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) I'm actually a big fan of Niall Ferguson. Is this Peter Thiel the husband of Tiffani Amber-Thiel? Edited February 14, 2012 by ieatcrayonz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Interesting observation, considering NASA's only long-term and most successful program - Mars exploration - just had their budget annihilated. I read that yesterday. It was interesting (and disappointing) because when we were in Florida for the launch of the Curiosity, everyone we met from from NASA/JPL were so supportive of the approach the current administration was taking as it related to space exploration. Some of it seemed kind of "Thank you, sir, may I have another" in tone, but mostly I walked away thinking they were optimistic because at least Mars exploration was still getting funding. Maybe if we're lucky, Curiosity will find something that begs for further exploration, but at the risk of again sounding like a right-wing extremist partisan hack, there really doesn't seem to be anything about this current administration that cares one lick about space. This is somewhat ironic to me because liberals are always yelling how government programs are important because they bring us great advancements and innovations. And yet the one area that brought us some of the most amazing technological advancements is being reduced to a historical museum and gift shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I read that yesterday. It was interesting (and disappointing) because when we were in Florida for the launch of the Curiosity, everyone we met from from NASA/JPL were so supportive of the approach the current administration was taking as it related to space exploration. Some of it seemed kind of "Thank you, sir, may I have another" in tone, but mostly I walked away thinking they were optimistic because at least Mars exploration was still getting funding. Maybe if we're lucky, Curiosity will find something that begs for further exploration, but at the risk of again sounding like a right-wing extremist partisan hack, there really doesn't seem to be anything about this current administration that cares one lick about space. This is somewhat ironic to me because liberals are always yelling how government programs are important because they bring us great advancements and innovations. And yet the one area that brought us some of the most amazing technological advancements is being reduced to a historical museum and gift shop. Or even better: "government programs are important because they create jobs," but "NASA/DoD/Boogemyan Of The Moment is just corporate welfare". But not to worry...Obama's just cutting the unmanned programs to devote more money to manned programs, which he cut two years ago to devote more money to unmanned programs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 If there has been anything that Romney says that I believe to be in all earnest to be true is that there is a fight for AMerica's soul. From a social stand point, do we continue to go down the path of a democratic sort of socialism or do we at least begin to halt the lurch to the left? Honestly, I believe we will continue to move to the left. Let's face it, when you have an electorate that isn't all that engaged, it is much easier to appeal to the public from a strawman POV which is "Is it fair that Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than you?" "You don't believe women should have coverage for contraceptives?" "Why do you want to cut Medicare for seniors?" "Don't you want us to continue to fund more programs for Education?" "Why do you want to fire more firefighters, police officers and teachers?" "Shouldn't everyone have the RIGHT to free healthcare?" "Don't teachers deserve great pensions?" "Shouldn't CEO's of companies make less than what they are now?" "Why do you want there to be more pollution?" "Wouldn't you rather have our economy powered by solar and wind energy over Oil?" I could go on and on, this is what you are up against. To the average person who doesn't look into the cost, the lack of effeciency and feasibility of these ideals, it's a tough argument to win. Why? Because they prey on the empathetic emotions of people. If people were armed with more facts, and more importantly had the desire to look into these thing, most reasonabe people would conclude this is not the path towards economic viability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I read that yesterday. It was interesting (and disappointing) because when we were in Florida for the launch of the Curiosity, everyone we met from from NASA/JPL were so supportive of the approach the current administration was taking as it related to space exploration. Some of it seemed kind of "Thank you, sir, may I have another" in tone, but mostly I walked away thinking they were optimistic because at least Mars exploration was still getting funding. Maybe if we're lucky, Curiosity will find something that begs for further exploration, but at the risk of again sounding like a right-wing extremist partisan hack, there really doesn't seem to be anything about this current administration that cares one lick about space. This is somewhat ironic to me because liberals are always yelling how government programs are important because they bring us great advancements and innovations. And yet the one area that brought us some of the most amazing technological advancements is being reduced to a historical museum and gift shop. Or even better: "government programs are important because they create jobs," but "NASA/DoD/Boogemyan Of The Moment is just corporate welfare". But not to worry...Obama's just cutting the unmanned programs to devote more money to manned programs, which he cut two years ago to devote more money to unmanned programs... NASA is taking the same (unfortunate) hit that all sciences are taking. With funding being slashed, the real "marquee" type of research projects are being passed over for minor, incremental research by "well-established" people. It's the Dick Jauron approach to science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 NASA is taking the same (unfortunate) hit that all sciences are taking. With funding being slashed, the real "marquee" type of research projects are being passed over for minor, incremental research by "well-established" people. It's the Dick Jauron approach to science. It's Bush's fault; we all know how much he hated science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 NASA is taking the same (unfortunate) hit that all sciences are taking. With funding being slashed, the real "marquee" type of research projects are being passed over for minor, incremental research by "well-established" people. It's the Dick Jauron approach to science. So does that mean NASA will now be hiring a couple hundred corner backs?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 So does that mean NASA will now be hiring a couple hundred corner backs?? Well, it may mean that Werner Von Braun's next job will be as a High School Physics teacher who coaches the school's rocket club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 So does that mean NASA will now be hiring a couple hundred corner backs?? Our goal isn't to get to the moon, it's to stay close to the moon, then try to land on the final two minutes of rocket fuel. Because it's hard to land on the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Our goal isn't to get to the moon, it's to stay close to the moon, then try to land on the final two minutes of rocket fuel. Because it's hard to land on the moon. Sounds a lot like Apollo 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Sounds a lot like Apollo 11. Apollo 7-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Apollo 7-9 Didn't he die in Rocky 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Didn't he die in Rocky 3? No, that was when Yuri Gagarin told Wally Schirra "I must break you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Our goal isn't to get to the moon, it's to stay close to the moon, then try to land on the final two minutes of rocket fuel. Because it's hard to land on the moon. Well, thats how they Just Plaine Loose men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Is this Peter Thiel the husband of Tiffani Amber-Thiel? Some guys have all the luck. She was so hot in Cape Canaveral 90210. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) Shades of Ayn Rand? I really can't find anything in here that I disagree with. Linky thingy from the comments: " theil just gave a lecture at harvard that advised it's students to drop out and start a business .because, you know, he and a few other zillionaires were successful at it. not sure i trust his judgement". someone else pointed out that kennedy would indeed have had a difficult time dealing with healthcare in the late 60's cuz, um, he was dead. Edited February 15, 2012 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts