Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 222 posts

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#151

Post by adventured »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #74
aaron-lebo wrote: post #40

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…

How does one measure, compare and conclude that California is the most developed economy in the world?

It doesn't make much sense. California doesn't have a super high median income or GDP per capita compared to other rich US states. The US has around a dozen states with median incomes equal to or higher than Switzerland.

California ranks #8 in GDP per capita in the US among states. It's around $59,000 for 2017, which is high globally but not particularly high vs the overall US figure of ~$57,000.

California ranks near the bottom in education and is 35th in poverty rate.

The title of most developed US state goes to Massachusetts most likely. It has a super high GDP per capita and median income, and is generally highly developed in most regards including education, poverty, and median standard of living. The problem is, it's the size of a Scandinavian nation. New Hampshire is even worse: they have one of the world's highest median incomes and GDP per capita figures, but only 1.3 million people.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#152

Post by Chiba-City »

Mathematicians are globalists. Software is like High Latin or sheet music. CPU's are its translators or maybe pipe organs. What could anyone miss here? This was, is and shall remain the very overt and enduring goal of cultured people. I did get to study nuclear strategy relevant game theory with Thomas Schelling decades back. But I should not be newly informing software guru CPU composers that "good jobs for good wages to impress ladies" or "sky bomber tools" are not goals. Those are minimal essential system basslines or nothing. Math applies everywhere we listen. There is no politics or wishing to it whatsoever. Just more math and music.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#153

Post by eropple »

CalChris wrote: post #147
StevePerkins wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From state legislator to launching an (ultimately successful!) Presidential campaign in a year-and-a-half? We'll have to agree to disagree. Either way, if anything in U.S. politics is non-controversial... it should be the observation that three Presidential cycles in a row have been won by upstarts, whose credentials are strikingly out of place alongside their peers of the past century. That's not arguing equivalence…

George W Bush was not an upstart by any definition of the word. To be sure, he had no particular claim to talent but then his father had been President and his grandfather had been Senator.

And he'd been a governor.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#154

Post by eropple »

CalChris wrote: post #150
whyenot wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we all saw what happened to Bernie in the democratic primaries I don't know what you saw, but I saw Clinton winning 55% of the vote.

I voted for Bernie in the CA primary. Hillary won the Democratic primary pretty handily. Actually, I was surprised by how well Bernie did. In November, I voted for Hillary.

Which, as somebody who voted for Hillary the whole way through, I really appreciate. I wish that the fact-free narratives that came up hadn't helped convince a number of other Bernie supporters not to do the sane thing.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#155

Post by AndrewKemendo »

zht wrote: 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?

That's the first I've heard of that connection and it seems like a pretty rocky connection based on what I just read [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism#Anti-globaliz...

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#156

Post by CalChris »

eropple wrote: post #153
CalChris wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George W Bush was not an upstart by any definition of the word. To be sure, he had no particular claim to talent but then his father had been President and his grandfather had been Senator.

And he'd been a governor.

FWIW Texas is a weak governor system. Pretty much the only thing the governor does is throw the switch during executions which W did with abandon.

The Roman Republic had a concept, the New Man. W was not a New Man nor was his father. Neither were upstarts.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#157

Post by pvg »

lliamander wrote: post #145
pvg wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. That's not what 'globalist' means outside of the fringes. It's certainly not the way the linked article uses it.

Well, I'll have to re-read the linked article. In any case, while I probably did not phrase it in the language that globalists themselves would use, but would they flat out refute my definition? Or would they merely nuance it?

Yes, yours is the Breitbart definition. Just google 'globalist', look at the wikipedia page, etc. If I defined 'libertarians' as, say, 'people who won't answer the question "How often do you beat your spouse?" with a simple yes or no', it would be just inaccurate and loaded, not something libertarians would want to 'nuance'.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#158

Post by autokad »

slg wrote: post #105
wils1245 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

More competition is also how we got Trump on the republican side because the number of candidates lowered the bar for receiving a plurality of the votes. Trump never would have beaten someone like Cruz, Rubio, or even Jeb in a primary straight up.

I dont agree at all, and I do not think the data backs it up. Jeb is a clear loss mono e mono against trump in the primary, no question.

the candidates you mentioned only did well in limited/specific geographies (such as their home state). i followed the primaries on both sides, and had you consolidated the votes to trump vs other, trump would have won. its also very unlikely that 'other' would all vote for 'other' if they weren't specifically allowed to vote for someone like Cruz.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#159

Post by mc32 »

CalChris wrote: post #92
mc32 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Let's not forget Grey Davis' being a politician didn't help California against rolling brownouts and massive deficits in the 2000s. The correct spelling is Gray Davis [1]. The rolling brownouts were caused by Enron [2] who was enabled by legislation (AB 1890) that his predecessor Pete Wilson signed in 1996 [3]. People went to jail for that. [4] There were no massive deficits under Davis. When the tech bubble burst…

Arianna Huffington has a different take on the issue. Others do as well. Davis blames federal regulation while at the sane time has retrospectively apologized for being slow to act as the crisis began.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#160

Post by davidivadavid »

CalChris wrote: post #142
davidivadavid wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about that, unless you're conflating libertarians with anarcho-capitalists. Minarchist libertarians would actually consider that making free trade possible through military might is in the purview of the state.

You are saying that the minarchist Night Watchman State will have 10 carrier strike groups? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

If that's what's required to ensure the freedom of the Night Watchman State citizens, sure.
Post reply on HN