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

Silicon Valley Runs on Saudi (2019)

vicki.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 176 posts

Re: Silicon Valley Runs on Saudi (2019)

#61

Post by tasogare »

baybal2 wrote: post #50
sillysaurusx wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure HN is the place for this, but it's not exactly up to me. Calling a country "Middle Eastern North Korea" in the first sentence isn't really conducive to a nice intellectual discussion on the merits of taking Saudi investment though. I guess what rubs me the wrong way about this is that it's very easy to write an incendiary toplevel comment. The story was posted about 35 minutes ago. Looking over the other…

> Calling a country "Middle Eastern North Korea" in the first sentence isn't really conducive to a nice intellectual discussion on the merits of taking Saudi investment though. Calling Saudi kingdom the Middle Eastern North Korea is the best what you can do to conduct a "nice intellectual discussion" you want. Intellectual discussion is calling things their real names. It is a total intellectual dishonesty, and hypoc…

How are you justifying that term? I see nothing (geographically, politically, culturally, economically, historically, religiously, diplomatically, etc.) that could justify it even in the slightest.

Re: Silicon Valley Runs on Saudi (2019)

#63

Post by mattlutze »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #42
mattlutze wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private individuals choose who they want to do business with, including who they take money from. Your argument really goes both ways. If the sovereign citizens of Saudi Arabia want their national wealth invested in private industry, maybe they need to first change their country to be the sort of place these investment seekers want to do business with. There's great examples of positive changes toward business and in…

Welfare states depend on economies of scale that only states can provide. Switching to a culture of totally private mode of investment would mean an end to the welfare state and the slipping of much of the population into precarity. So, the best thing for both Saudis and the world would be politically liberalizing moves that maintain all that state investment and high standard of living, but with authorities that are…

There's no need to make the question binary; plenty of liberal states have strong social systems, and yes changing federal state management structures though would be one change that could make Saudi Arabia more attractive an investment partner.

Going into business with the royal family strengthens its power globally and domestically and decreases the chance that the Saudi population could effect a change, whether they wanted to or not. It also legitimizes the actions of the Saudi royal family. That's a consideration that a private individual is under no greater political obligation to make one way or the other, and a consideration that should be made with deliberation (as should any decision of this kind be made).

We're missing I think a good argument for forcing private founders to be critical of how they run their business but to avoid due diligence on whether funding sources come from the Saudi monarchy. How the government of the US and other countries negotiate relations and sovereign trade with Saudi Arabia is a separate though indeed important topic.

Re: Silicon Valley Runs on Saudi (2019)

#64

Post by [deleted] »

baybal2 wrote: post #27

American relationship with "Middle Eastern North Korea" must be destroyed, severed, set on fire, and beshamed. Along with Guatanamo base, it's the biggest stain on US credibility in international relations. In other words, US can't dictate its allies who can they make friends with without taking the prickly subject of Saudi Arabia, and its chainsaw prince off the table.

[deleted]

Re: Silicon Valley Runs on Saudi (2019)

#65

Post by ganstyles »

yowlingcat wrote: post #47
neom wrote: post #11

When I was fundraising for my startup, after pitching I always emailed to ask about the LPs and if there's any Saudi/oil money in the pool. More than 10 firms just ghosted me after that email, potentially because they think it's poor form to ask about LPs. (edit:We were still able to raise over $3.5MM seed though, so don't necessarily let asking put you off.)

> potentially because they think it's poor form to ask about LPs. It is, but I'm not sure it's for the reasons you are implying. First and foremost, Saudi money and oil money is an enormous part of global wealth /full stop/. That deep degree of intermixing happened decades ago; there's no putting that cat back in the bag. Asking a question like this to VCs who you are ostensibly trying to make a good first impression…

One can care about fundraising for their startup and care about raising untainted money without it being one's primary concern. Then you move the goalposts a little more and essentially say that you shouldn't be concerned with funding sources at all. The latter point especially seems amoral.

It's all a bit of a straw man. I'm curious what motivations are backing your reasons for advocating for this position?

Re: Silicon Valley Runs on Saudi (2019)

#66

Post by [deleted] »

74d-fe6-2c6 wrote: post #58
nabla9 wrote: post #29

Money = Power over what is spoken and done. Think about this: MSB meets Bezos and gives him a video that installs spyware into his smartphone. MSB taunts Bezos about his extramarital affair before it's widely known. Then his affair is leaked to the press. Bezos thinks MSB might be involved in the process that led to revealing the information. MSB kills one of Bezos's employers. Bezos flies Turkey to meet his fiancee…

I'm wondering how many similar cases there are involving politicians where some sort of video (using a toilet, squeezing a pimple and eating it, having sex [or related activities like water sports ... the mysterious Trump tape], nudes, Epstein's peado island, ...) is being used for blackmailing and influencing political positions. I mean attempting this is almost risk-free and simple for a well organized group of hac…

[deleted]

Re: Silicon Valley Runs on Saudi (2019)

#67

Post by simonh »

cheaprentalyeti wrote: post #17
simonh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is these companies often claim liberal, progressive values and that they are forces for social good. On the other hand they are flattering and fawning to a murdering oppressive brute in person. It's an exasperating situation to be in. We need Saudi oil so we need to be able to work with them, but they are a grievous threat to freedoms and civil society globally. It's not just MBS either, look at the way g…

Look, speaking as someone who had a customer in the area in 2010 who kept me alive... as in, their contracts kept me from homelessness... the US government in 2011 under Barack Obama supported a putsch against the government of Egypt in an attempt to turn the country over to the Moslem Brotherhood, which led to about 1300 deaths in Egypt on both sides at the time. In addition it cost my customer his business. The Ara…

Egypt had an actual election, it was hardly a putch and it wasn't at all instigated by Obama, he just mildly cheered it along as you would any attempt to move towards democracy. Just as the Conservative British government here in the UK did. Any of his predecessors would have done exactly the same thing, so it's bizarre that you try to make a partisan point out of it. What exactly was Gorge Bush's "Freedom Agenda" policy about?

As for funding Iran, this was to settle a legal case the US was very obviously losing. In any case, after Iran Contra I wouldn't have thought there were any more lessons to be learned about pragmatic deal making on Republican benches, but there you go.

As a British conservative that grew up in the Reagan/Thatcher era, nowadays I find dealing with US Republicans so exasperating. It very much reminds me of dealing with ideologically programmed socialist students back when I was a student. So much of the can-do optimism and results based pragmatism has just gone.

Re: Silicon Valley Runs on Saudi (2019)

#68

Post by chaganated »

WalterGR wrote: post #57
DSingularity wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who undermined faith in NATO?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-content/twitter-r... Twitter removes hundreds of accounts it says are linked to Iran, Russia, Armenia "...Twitter said 100 accounts with Russian ties were removed for amplifying narratives that undermined faith in NATO and targeted the United States and the European Union...” Some are trying to turn this into a “Twitter censorship” story rather than a “Twitter fighting natio…

Plenty of anti-war friends from Maine & Connecticut penalized in that sweep. I doubt that the Russians have converted all of our old hippies into spies.

Re: Silicon Valley Runs on Saudi (2019)

#69

Post by epc »

mrweasel wrote: post #53
epc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am an LP in a couple of tiny funds…a lot of the funds have verbiage to the effect that the GP will not reveal any information about LPs except as required by law (I'm not saying that's what happened here, and the firms should have just responded that they don't disclose information about their LPs rather than ghosting you). There's also typically verbiage restricting what LPs can reveal about the fund, a recent one r…

Is it also possible that asking about the LPs, and especially saudi influence, could indicate that the founders has morals that could be “annoying” down the road?

Possibly. I mean, I'm a stereotypical East Coast liberal "elite SJW" so the founder's question would have been perfectly acceptable to me (if I were the GP of the fund). I would say that the closer a fund is to one of the coastal centers of influence …the more complex and restrictive the partnership documents have been.

Re: Silicon Valley Runs on Saudi (2019)

#70

Post by juanani »

secfirstmd wrote: post #43
baybal2 wrote: post #27

American relationship with "Middle Eastern North Korea" must be destroyed, severed, set on fire, and beshamed. Along with Guatanamo base, it's the biggest stain on US credibility in international relations. In other words, US can't dictate its allies who can they make friends with without taking the prickly subject of Saudi Arabia, and its chainsaw prince off the table.

Pretty sure the Iraq War was the biggest stain on US credibility. Also there's a strong argument that the US support of Israel's occupation of Palestine (and by that I mean Israeli rightwing government, not the many good and courageous Israelis who fight for peace) is the next biggest stain on US credibility in international relations. It's been the single most consistently pointed to example of US hypocrisy that has…

Sounds like the people who sell weapons(the war kind) have a strong hold on our governments through lobbying/corruption. Is there a career politician that speaks out against these systems? It feels like the governments work for them, not the people. What do?
Post reply on HN