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

With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul

#41

Post by Cushman »

ThomPete wrote: post #37
Cushman wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I smell bullshit. There are a few unjustly felonious fields-- nuclear power, stem cells, and recreational psychotropics are the ones that spring to mind. But in general, government regulation seems an easy scapegoat for the massive extraction of money and talent into the inanely lucrative military and financial sectors, along with a consumerist economy which inappropriately values making something cheaper over making…

Here is the problem. Most environmentalist believe they can solve the worlds problem by exchanging the current sources of energy with newer more environmentally friendly ones. But this is a linear solution to an exponential problem. The need for energy is going to increase manifold the next couple of decades. Can you name me one type of renewable energy that offers anything but a different source for same output? Tho…

The world does not have an energy generation problem. The world has an energy transmission problem. Fossil fuels are an easy but suboptimal solution to the latter. The premise that this has anything to do with environmentalism is absurd.

Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul

#42

Post by ThomPete »

Cushman wrote: post #41
ThomPete wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the problem. Most environmentalist believe they can solve the worlds problem by exchanging the current sources of energy with newer more environmentally friendly ones. But this is a linear solution to an exponential problem. The need for energy is going to increase manifold the next couple of decades. Can you name me one type of renewable energy that offers anything but a different source for same output? Tho…

The world does not have an energy generation problem. The world has an energy transmission problem. Fossil fuels are an easy but suboptimal solution to the latter. The premise that this has anything to do with environmentalism is absurd.

The world _will_have_ an energy generation problem.

If it was so absurd then there would be environmentalists who would argue for nuclear and thorium reactors.

That is not the case.

Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul

#43

Post by mindcrime »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #30
mindcrime wrote: post #7

Dear Mr. Thiel: How about throw some money Gary Johnson's way? It's pretty clear that Ron Paul won't be winning the GOP nomination; but Governor Johnson will likely be on the ballot in all 50 states, as the Libertarian alternative to the major party hegemony. Thx, Mindcrime

The problem with Gary Johnson is that when it comes to the financial crisis he's too close to the status quo. His position is that nobody did anything illegal, so no prosecutions, etc. That's demonstrably false, and the lack of S&L-like prosecutions is a symptom of governmental capture/crony capitalism, and its consequent moral hazard is something we'll paying for sooner or later. From that perspective, Ron Paul and/…

From that perspective, Ron Paul and/or Bill Still > Gary Johnson.

Yeah, but Gary Johnson > Mitt Romney & Barak Obama. And Johnson will (likely) be on the ballot in all 50 states, probably the only candidate other than Romney or Obama who can make that claim.

Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul

#44

Post by Cushman »

ThomPete wrote: post #42
Cushman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world does not have an energy generation problem. The world has an energy transmission problem. Fossil fuels are an easy but suboptimal solution to the latter. The premise that this has anything to do with environmentalism is absurd.

The world _will_have_ an energy generation problem. If it was so absurd then there would be environmentalists who would argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. That is not the case.

>The world _will_have_ an energy generation problem.

It will not. We orbit a self-sustaining fusion reaction which by definition will last our habitable life. The Earth, at least, is pretty much set.

> If it was so absurd then there would be environmentalists who would argue for nuclear and thorium reactors.

>That is not the case.

Many environmentalists argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. What decade do you think it is?

Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul

#45

Post by ThomPete »

Cushman wrote: post #44
ThomPete wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world _will_have_ an energy generation problem. If it was so absurd then there would be environmentalists who would argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. That is not the case.

>The world _will_have_ an energy generation problem. It will not. We orbit a self-sustaining fusion reaction which by definition will last our habitable life. The Earth, at least, is pretty much set. > If it was so absurd then there would be environmentalists who would argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. >That is not the case. Many environmentalists argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. What decade do you think…

"It will not. We orbit a self-sustaining fusion reaction which by definition will last our habitable life. The Earth, at least, is pretty much set."

We are set if we are allowed to find new ways to generate the energy. I don't see that happening right now or in the near future, in fact what I see is primarily an attempt to replace current usage.

Perhaps you have different sources that shows we have no problem and I would be happy to have a look at them. Otherwise we have to agree to disagree.

"Many environmentalists argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. What decade do you think it is?"

Perhaps our definition of environmentalists differ and perhaps it's because I am from Europe. But again if you have sources showing that the waste majority of envorimentalists are pro nuclear and pro thorium I would be happy to be proven wrong.

In fact this was the only thing that showed up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalists_for_Nuclear_E...

In which even they argue that environmentalists anti-nuclear views are a misunderstanding.

So as it stands right now I have a hard time believing your claim to be true.

Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul

#46

Post by WiseWeasel »

TDL wrote: post #40
WiseWeasel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think all that stuff is great, and that's why I supported him last time, but then he also has some less good platforms, like wanting to bring back a gold-backed currency [1], and a perhaps controversial stance on the legality of abortion. He's a mixed bag to me, and on top of that, he just comes off as not being sure why he's even in the race. [1] Hard currency is deflationary rather than inflationary, which takes…

Contrary to your point, the 19th century was a deflationary period and there was massive wealth creation and innovation. Inflation is not and was never a lubricant for social mobility.

There was tremendous wealth concentration, ultimately leading to the New Deal and Federal Reserve.

Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul

#47

Post by Cushman »

ThomPete wrote: post #45
Cushman wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The world _will_have_ an energy generation problem. It will not. We orbit a self-sustaining fusion reaction which by definition will last our habitable life. The Earth, at least, is pretty much set. > If it was so absurd then there would be environmentalists who would argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. >That is not the case. Many environmentalists argue for nuclear and thorium reactors. What decade do you think…

"It will not. We orbit a self-sustaining fusion reaction which by definition will last our habitable life. The Earth, at least, is pretty much set." We are set if we are allowed to find new ways to generate the energy. I don't see that happening right now or in the near future, in fact what I see is primarily an attempt to replace current usage. Perhaps you have different sources that shows we have no problem and I w…

We could easily generate enough power for the world using solar, nuclear, or coal, with solar being the longest lasting. What we cannot do presently is store or transmit that power to the point of use in a way which meets current expectations. This is why oil, though rarely burned for electricity, remains one of our primary energy sources-- #1 in the US, at least.

I'm curious what part of this stretches credibility.

> But again if you have sources showing that the waste majority of envorimentalists are pro nuclear and pro thorium I would be happy to be proven wrong.

I have claimed no such thing. Decide what you're arguing about.

Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul

#48

Post by pgryff »

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #17
pgryff wrote: post #5

Stupid "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…

"Obviously he doesn't believe that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination."

Let's be honest, Ron Paul won't be around for much longer. If you are really trying to make any real difference, you need someone younger and who's got a better chance of doing something. That would be Rand Paul and not Ron.

Ron Paul had his run and it's over. To put money into him now is a losers bet. There's no real political future for Ron Paul while there is a hell of an upside for Rand Paul.

Re: With Eye On Future, Billionaire Investor Bets On Paul

#50

Post by vannevar »

dantheman wrote: post #19
vannevar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[W]hen people become risk averse the status quo dominates...

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Looking at history objectively, I don't think it can be plausibly argued that technological progress now is slower than it was 60 years ago. And we are taking big new risks on a variety of fronts, including massive experiments in the genetic engineering of worldwide agriculture, smaller but even more dangerous experiments with genetically modified viruses, and experiments in large-scale decentralized automation of large segments of our financial systems, not to mention the ongoing global experiment in CO2 saturation that we are conducting unabated. You can argue for the benefits of all these experiments, but you can hardly say we've become risk averse. In the context of the highly leveraged and interconnected world we are creating, I would argue that we are nowhere near risk averse enough.

Post reply on HN