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

181–190 of 222 posts

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#181

Post by ericd »

a-kojeve wrote: post #146
ericd wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The primary reason I support it, and I don't think I'm alone among founders in this, is that I think that society is not going to work very well in the long term unless we strengthen our social safety nets. I want to live in a society that functions well, because I'm happier when surrounded by happier people. I also think that it would enable more people to take the risk of trying something new if they knew that fail…

There's an important distinction, however, between redistribution that seeks to create a more free and just society and retribution that seeks to prevent a society without consumers. Most tech people in favor of redistributive schemes like UBI are in favor of the later.

Ah, well, I'm in favor of UBI and both of the reasons you mention for it - the free market is still the best way we've found to allocate resources to worthwhile projects.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#182

Post by pvg »

lliamander wrote: post #171
pvg wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

First of all, Breitbart may use a definition like the one I provided, but I think so would the rather more mild-mannered Front Porch Republic[0], which should be noted has contributing members that identify more with the communitarian left than anything right-wing. As for your suggestion to "just google" it, I decided to take you up on it. The first result I got was a definition from Wordnik: "A national geopolitical…

"A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence." and "Anyone who desires world government (or the diminishing of local governments)" do not 'match up'. It's not the same ballpark, it's not even the same game. There is absolutely nothing in the former that implies or suggests a desire for world government. There really isn't any serious mainstream political movement or ideology that really desires a world government and there never has been - this is pure Bircher stuff, never mind Bannon. I am honestly at a loss how you see this as supporting your definition at all.

If you are keen on making up some political ideology full of people who are chomping at the bit to give up national sovereignty and culture, by all means. If you want to call them 'globalists', ok fine, that's your personal definition of 'globalist'. But to pull out a definition that says 'entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere of a state's influence' and declare it equivalent to 'desire for world government', that is just at odds with, I dunno, words, meanings of things, logic.

It wouldn't be a terribly bad start. By not identifying with either Conservative or Liberal your making it clear that you reject binary politics and false dichotomies.

I don't know what any of that means. Misdescribing someone doesn't somehow become right or a virtue simply because you are 'rejecting binary politics and false dichotomies'. It's still plainly and factually wrong.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#183

Post by mc32 »

CalChris wrote: post #169
mc32 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still Pete or Gray, their experience in politics did not prepare them for the events that followed. All major players have some blame, Pete, Gray and Enron. Enron was greedy and Pete and Gray, as evidenced by their political careers, didn't handle the sitch well in the eyes of the public.

As a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, I'm greedy, quite greedy. But Enron wasn't just greedy, it was a criminal organization. As such, people went to jail and it went out of business. The job losses at Enron were 4000 but they were 85,000 at Arthur Anderson, its accounting firm. Wilson enabled this although to be fair, he didn't foresee it. The CA energy crisis was the result of mid-90s neoliberal hubris. Like supply sid…

From that Wiki article you linked (just about everyone gets blamed) And to note, some of the contracts were signed by Davis:

>Some critics, such as Arianna Huffington, alleged that Davis was lulled to inaction by campaign contributions from energy producers.[28] In addition, the California State Legislature would sometimes push Davis to act decisively by taking over power plants which were known to have been gamed and place them back under control of the utilities, ensuring a more steady supply and slapping the nose of the worst manipulators . Meanwhile, conservatives argued that Davis signed overpriced energy contracts, employed incompetent negotiators, and refused to allow prices to rise for residences statewide much like they did in San Diego, which they argue could have given Davis more leverage against the energy traders and encouraged more conservation.[29] More criticism is given in the book Conspiracy of Fools, which gives the details of a meeting between the governor and his officials; Clinton Administration Treasury officials; and energy executives, including market manipulators such as Enron, where Gray Davis disagreed with the treasury officials and energy executives<

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#184

Post by wutbrodo »

wmf wrote: post #65
wutbrodo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The stereotypical Gray Tribe position is, "This government program is poorly-run; let's debug it" Until the Gray-Triber realizes that there's no real feedback loop between policy effectiveness and actual policy and end up as either a resigned left-winger or bitter right-winger

There is currently no feedback loop or there can never be a feedback loop?

It depends on how cynical you are, I guess. Seeing how even nominally intelligent and educated people approach politics and policy, I'm pretty firmly on the "never" side.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#185

Post by freedomben »

gcb0 wrote: post #168
dbroockman wrote: post #76

Author of the study they wrote about here. I think the NYT write up is better: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/silicon-valley... . Study here: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers... .

the nyt open with: "Silicon Valley has long preferred to remain aloof from national politics, but the Trump era has altered that stance." which is kinda of hard to defend since Obama constantly blocked the bay area on reelection campaigns and most of his advisors came from/went to silicon Valley companies.

How quickly we forget :-)

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#186

Post by sbge »

jmcmichael wrote: post #47
civilian wrote: post #10

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. I think a better model is that: People who understand economics tend to both be entrepreneurs (they understand t…

People who understand capitalism tend to be entrepreneurs, as they understand the rules of the game. But capitalism does not equal economics. I would even venture to say that people who consider themselves capitalists have a woefully limited view of the field of economics, and a general misunderstanding of the origins of money, markets, and debt. Although they certainly can do a good job of making profits within the…

mess is the word

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#187

Post by vacri »

raldi wrote: post #16

The stereotypical right-wing position is, "This government program is poorly-run; let's get rid of it" The stereotypical left-wing position is, "This government program should be left alone, even if it's poorly-run" The stereotypical Gray Tribe position is, "This government program is poorly-run; let's debug it"

> The stereotypical Gray Tribe position is, "This government program is poorly-run; let's debug it"

Just skimming google for Gray Tribe stuff and seeing that it's basically another name for 'libertarian tech workers', this isn't their stereotype. The stereotypical libertarian position on government programs, poorly-run or not, is the same as the right-wing position: "let's get rid of it".

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#188

Post by icantdrive55 »

mc32 wrote: post #172
gcb0 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the nyt open with: "Silicon Valley has long preferred to remain aloof from national politics, but the Trump era has altered that stance." which is kinda of hard to defend since Obama constantly blocked the bay area on reelection campaigns and most of his advisors came from/went to silicon Valley companies.

I'm kind of wondering what happened between c. 1999 and now. The WTO meetings in Seattle were protested vigorously by "anarchist anti-globalists" who sought to protect American workers from the competition of outsourcing and cheap goods from overseas (China was going to enter WTO) So much so the next meetings were in Doha. But now, these same class of people are quite a bit more pro globalization and might be conside…

1. They didn't have the power that the 1 percent do?

2. They realized how difficult is to reverse a situation?

3. They realized they don't want to pay more for stuff, especially when you're unemployed, or underemployed?

4. I'm still kinda confused. I definitely don't have the power(money) to take a stance. Hell most Trump voters only way of saying, "Hay wait--something is definetly wrong?" was voting for this idiot. And yes--they are probally blaming the wrong elements in the problem. The 1 percent will just ride it out, while getting a tax break. They will be just fine, as usual.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#189

Post by raldi »

vacri wrote: post #187
raldi wrote: post #16

The stereotypical right-wing position is, "This government program is poorly-run; let's get rid of it" The stereotypical left-wing position is, "This government program should be left alone, even if it's poorly-run" The stereotypical Gray Tribe position is, "This government program is poorly-run; let's debug it"

> The stereotypical Gray Tribe position is, "This government program is poorly-run; let's debug it" Just skimming google for Gray Tribe stuff and seeing that it's basically another name for 'libertarian tech workers', this isn't their stereotype. The stereotypical libertarian position on government programs, poorly-run or not, is the same as the right-wing position: "let's get rid of it".

Gray Tribe is wildly different from Libertarian. The former supports universal healthcare, free high-quality public education, and generally a strong social safety net paid for by high taxes on the wealthy.

Re: Tech bosses are globalists, not libertarians

#190

Post by bowlofpetunias »

mc32 wrote: post #172
gcb0 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the nyt open with: "Silicon Valley has long preferred to remain aloof from national politics, but the Trump era has altered that stance." which is kinda of hard to defend since Obama constantly blocked the bay area on reelection campaigns and most of his advisors came from/went to silicon Valley companies.

I'm kind of wondering what happened between c. 1999 and now. The WTO meetings in Seattle were protested vigorously by "anarchist anti-globalists" who sought to protect American workers from the competition of outsourcing and cheap goods from overseas (China was going to enter WTO) So much so the next meetings were in Doha. But now, these same class of people are quite a bit more pro globalization and might be conside…

Because "globalism" is a misnomer, it's shorthand for "economic globalism". Economic globalism is the exploitation of the masses by opening the borders for trade and desirable workers, whilst keeping them closed for the 99% of this planets population.

That's the kind of "globalism" the tech elite supports. They love to hide behind closed borders when it protects their wealth and power.

Those "same class of people" have always supported true globalism for the people in terms of a complete removal of borders. Don't blame them because greedy neoliberals have hijacked the term globalism.

Post reply on HN