I supported Paul last time around and was disappointed to discover he wasn't really serious about (or maybe simply not prepared for) winning the primary or having a significant impact on US politics at the expense of his political party. I got the feeling he was perfectly content to let his r3volution get hijacked by the Tea Party and used to suit the purposes of various politicians. The money I donated was not used to mount a serious campaign, but was instead appropriated for other use once the campaign was conceded. I ended up having to vote for Bob Barr. Bob Barr! Fool me twice, you're not gonna fool me again. Paul seems like a good guy, but he's doing more harm than good squandering all these resources that might be better spent on someone who's actually serious about running a viable campaign.
With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul
11–20 of 52 posts
Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul
#12[deleted]
Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul
#13I supported Paul last time around and was disappointed to discover he wasn't really serious about (or maybe simply not prepared for) winning the primary or having a significant impact on US politics at the expense of his political party. I got the feeling he was perfectly content to let his r3volution get hijacked by the Tea Party and used to suit the purposes of various politicians. The money I donated was not used…
I think the issues with the Paul campaign were more due to incompetence than malice.
His management style is very hands off, and that means some of the people around him which are some times rather clueless or nutty end making a bit of a mess of things.
Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul
#14Question: anyone know the largest risk, financially, that Thiel has recently taken?
Clarium Capital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarium_Capital (directly related to his Ron Paul support)
Clarium's assets under management grew to $8 billion in 2008 after which a series of unprofitable investments and client redemptions resulted in its assets declining below $1 billion as of 2011
Ouch.
Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul
#15"I believe we are in a world where innovation in stuff was outlawed. It was basically outlawed in the last 40 years — part of it was environmentalism, part of it was risk aversion," he says. "And all the engineering disciplines that had to do with stuff have basically been outlawed one by one."
As an engineer myself, this quote illustrates Thiel's ignorance of engineering progress over the past 40 years, and his disregard for the risks posed by industrial-scale experiments on the general public. People like him are precisely why we need environmental regulations in the first place, instead of simply relying on people's common sense and prudence.
Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul
#16"I believe we are in a world where innovation in stuff was outlawed. It was basically outlawed in the last 40 years — part of it was environmentalism, part of it was risk aversion," he says. "And all the engineering disciplines that had to do with stuff have basically been outlawed one by one."
Exactly right. This is why all the innovation is in the virtual world rather than the physical world. Engine explosions [1], airplane crashes [2], and radiation poisoning [3] were the price of progress in the early 20th century, but we've become too fat and happy to take those kinds of risks today. The only crash we'll tolerate is the Fail Whale, and we'll complain bitterly about that too.
China has no such hangups [4]. Even Europe has less onerous regulations than the US in key areas like medical devices [5].
We are soon going to see what the relative innovation rates are in a society that accepts a few deaths of brave pioneers as the nonnegotiable price of progress, versus one that has forgotten how many people died perfecting the technologies that got us to the present day.
[1] http://www.historicpelham.com/blogarchive/Blog20090720.htm
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_307#Operational_history
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin
[4] http://boingboing.net/2011/09/21/china-gentleman-builds-home...
[5] http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medical-devices-and-pre...
Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul
#17Stupid "bet" by Thiel. If he was truly thinking of the future, he'd be better off supporting Rand Paul not Ron. But a fool and his money...
Obviously he doesn't believe that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination. Only an imbecile would believe that and Thiel is not that. The point is that as long as Ron Paul is out there on the political flank of plausible candidates with a small committed support base, the more centrist candidates will tack towards his position to try and capture some of his support.
Witness how Santorum pulled Romney towards more socially conservative positions just by existing. Santorum didn't win, but as a result of his run he pulled the Republican centre towards him.
Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul
#18I supported Paul last time around and was disappointed to discover he wasn't really serious about (or maybe simply not prepared for) winning the primary or having a significant impact on US politics at the expense of his political party. I got the feeling he was perfectly content to let his r3volution get hijacked by the Tea Party and used to suit the purposes of various politicians. The money I donated was not used…
I think the issues with the Paul campaign were more due to incompetence than malice. His management style is very hands off, and that means some of the people around him which are some times rather clueless or nutty end making a bit of a mess of things.
To me, it seems like he's along for the ride rather than leading anything. He's simply coasting on the momentum of his immutable ethos, and then riding the break from successive waves of the world crashing into it until each is expired. Money given to someone like that is probably wasted; Ron Paul is just going to keep being Ron Paul no matter how much money you throw at him.
Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul
#19"I believe we are in a world where innovation in stuff was outlawed. It was basically outlawed in the last 40 years — part of it was environmentalism, part of it was risk aversion," he says. "And all the engineering disciplines that had to do with stuff have basically been outlawed one by one."
As an engineer myself, this quote illustrates Thiel's ignorance of engineering progress over the past 40 years, and his disregard for the risks posed by industrial-scale experiments on the general public. People like him are precisely why we need environmental regulations in the first place, instead of simply relying on people's common sense and prudence.
Neal Stephenson recently wrote an article on how being risk averse is limiting our progress: http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/fall2011/innovation-starv...
I think there are two sides to this, I want to see more innovation and am willing to live in a riskier world to see that happen faster. A lot of regulation merely locks in present bad forms, in the nuclear world we see that yucca mountain isn't perfect so instead we leave nuclear waste all around the country in "temporary pools" -- where the risk is much much higher that something bad can happen. Unfortunately, when people become risk averse the status quo dominates, I mean who can argue with "that's how it's always been done" vs "I took a chance and it didn't work out, but the status quo was unsustainable."
We've unleashed a monster of bureaucracy that vastly limits the potential avenues of investigation. Feynman, has a great perspective - I got good at math and could do it fast, this means that when I wanted to try something the cost was low - a few minutes or an hour, whereas others it would take a day or two. This allowed me to investigate areas with low likelihood of success, and try out novel ideas. Some of his big discoveries were from that type of work. (paraphrased from memory - couldn't find the story, it's in one of his books.
The problem is that we can directly measure the cost of an accident/disaster, but we don't correctly factor, imho, the cost of stuff that was never created.
Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul
#20"I believe we are in a world where innovation in stuff was outlawed. It was basically outlawed in the last 40 years — part of it was environmentalism, part of it was risk aversion," he says. "And all the engineering disciplines that had to do with stuff have basically been outlawed one by one."
Exactly right. This is why all the innovation is in the virtual world rather than the physical world. Engine explosions [1], airplane crashes [2], and radiation poisoning [3] were the price of progress in the early 20th century, but we've become too fat and happy to take those kinds of risks today. The only crash we'll tolerate is the Fail Whale, and we'll complain bitterly about that too. China has no such hangups […
This is why all the innovation is in the virtual world rather than the physical world. Engine explosions [1], airplane crashes [2], and radiation poisoning [3] were the price of progress in the early 20th century
So who's up to lead now? China? India?