Live data from Hacker News

Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

economist.com

81–90 of 222 posts

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#81

There was a comment about the political influence and aspirations of certain big names in tech, but it has suddenly disappeared. It contained some criticism of Paul Graham and Sam Altman, but seemed totally reasonable to me -- can anyone say why it was deleted?

I wrote it, I don't feel like being an ass and I'm feeling overly aggressive today, not to mention I am a guest in someone else's house. ...but my overall point is that the tech elite is composed of a lot of rich white guys with connections, who naturally help each other out. Sam Altman runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running for governor of California. That strikes me as grandios…

Most of them aren't "white" but jewish

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#82
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote it, I don't feel like being an ass and I'm feeling overly aggressive today, not to mention I am a guest in someone else's house. ...but my overall point is that the tech elite is composed of a lot of rich white guys with connections, who naturally help each other out. Sam Altman runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running for governor of California. That strikes me as grandios…

Trump lowered the bar so much that most people think they can do a better job than the current president, and are probably right. What they miss is that running as a republican is very different than running as a democrat (as I guess most tech people would want to). Zuckberg would beat Trump in the democratic primaries, no question about that. But he won't be in front of Trump, he would be in front of many experience…

> What they miss is that running as a republican is very different than running as a democrat

Yeah the republican primaries are more fair and balanced - we all saw what happened to Bernie in the democratic primaries.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#83

There was a comment about the political influence and aspirations of certain big names in tech, but it has suddenly disappeared. It contained some criticism of Paul Graham and Sam Altman, but seemed totally reasonable to me -- can anyone say why it was deleted?

I wrote it, I don't feel like being an ass and I'm feeling overly aggressive today, not to mention I am a guest in someone else's house. ...but my overall point is that the tech elite is composed of a lot of rich white guys with connections, who naturally help each other out. Sam Altman runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running for governor of California. That strikes me as grandios…

I welcome it. I'd much rather have a crowded field than what we had in the last election on the Democratic side - a field emptied by the presence of a dominant presumptive nominee. More competition is a good thing.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote it, I don't feel like being an ass and I'm feeling overly aggressive today, not to mention I am a guest in someone else's house. ...but my overall point is that the tech elite is composed of a lot of rich white guys with connections, who naturally help each other out. Sam Altman runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running for governor of California. That strikes me as grandios…

The rich white guys you mentioned in this comment are all Jewish, for what it's worth. Not trying to be a conspiracy theorist or a racist here, but trying to pin this on white privilege isn't entirely accurate.

When it suits the privilege narrative, Jewish people are white.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#85
post #68
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sam Altman runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running for governor of California. That strikes me as grandiose and not good for society Arnold Schwarzenegger was the Governor of California. At least as far as the 'what makes him qualified' thing goes, apparently that's not a real concern for voters :)

Let's not forget Grey Davis' being a politician didn't help California against rolling brownouts and massive deficits in the 2000s.

Yeah, he was powerless against the Uber of its day: Enron.

I'm not sure the fault there was Grey Davis's. Seems there was skulduggery afoot (it's actually a really interesting story, and seemingly a perennial one)

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#86

There was a comment about the political influence and aspirations of certain big names in tech, but it has suddenly disappeared. It contained some criticism of Paul Graham and Sam Altman, but seemed totally reasonable to me -- can anyone say why it was deleted?

I wrote it, I don't feel like being an ass and I'm feeling overly aggressive today, not to mention I am a guest in someone else's house. ...but my overall point is that the tech elite is composed of a lot of rich white guys with connections, who naturally help each other out. Sam Altman runs YC now and as of last year was apparently seriously considering running for governor of California. That strikes me as grandios…

I'll be honest I had no idea who Sam Altman is so I read his wikipedia page and I still don't quite understand how he got to where he is today? Was his success started by the Loopt sale?

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#87

Classical liberalism does not oppose universal healthcare. When you had prohibition, in Denmark we had classical liberalism, universal healthcare and a marginal taxrate of <15% (1/4 of yours). This is the society that I prefer and hopefully Denmark can get back on the right track :)

It does as "universal" means you need to FORCE everyone to partake in it. But it doesn't prohibit socialized healthcare - all the socialists can gather and create an insurance company that will socialize the costs amongst it's members. But they love someone else's money too much it seems

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#88
post #77

Please excuse my ignorance with modern political parlance, but I always got the feeling that "globalists" was actually dogwhistle codeword for Jew. Is that the case?

Interesting, that's never been my understanding. More refers to anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments) and who finds the desire to preserve one's culture, community, and national identity as backwards and unenlightened.

I suppose it could be used by some as a dogwhistle, but it seems there's also a meaningful set of ideas that can be represented by that term.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#89
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bullshit. You're committing the fallacy that comes from Marxist thought--- that one's position/class/socio-economic-factors are the determining factors in their values and beliefs. People are not so simple, their thoughts can come from elsewhere. You're wildly underestimating the sentience of these people. Humans want to believe that they are not so simple, but usually they are. We're more caricatures than snowflak…

How to explain the behavior of people like Nick Hanauer, who advocates higher taxes on the wealthy?[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Hanauer

How does one exception change anything?

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#90

I think more simplistically: when you take this group of people and average them out what you get are beliefs that benefit the large companies they represent. That's the signal that is correlated with running a big tech company, and the rest is probably mostly noise. That's all really, they aren't for or against free trade in aggregate, they are for their company trading profitably, on average.

Bullshit. You're committing the fallacy that comes from Marxist thought--- that one's position/class/socio-economic-factors are the determining factors in their values and beliefs. People are not so simple, their thoughts can come from elsewhere. You're wildly underestimating the sentience of these people. I think a better model is that: People who understand economics tend to both be entrepreneurs (they understand t…

>that one's position/class/socio-economic-factors are the determining factors in their values and beliefs.

Have you actually read Marx? Nowhere does he make this claim, nor inspire this thought. I don't know where you're getting this from. Marx does not deny the indidual's individuality. Here's a little quote, which is a criticism from Marx of the very view you are accusing him of:

>The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change [Selbstveränderung] can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

(From Theses on Feuerbach)

Please don't accuse us Marxists of the fallacies you can't back up. Besides, even if Marx was accused of economic determinism, it doesn't mean that the critics are right. In fact, here's yet another statement from one of the founders of Marxism (Marx's close friend Friedrich Engels):

"Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction. But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible."

Post reply on HN