Peter Thiel & Max Levchin: "Silicon Valley Lacks Radical Innovation"(siliconvalleywatcher.com)
siliconvalleywatcher.com
Peter Thiel & Max Levchin: "Silicon Valley Lacks Radical Innovation"
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2011/02/top_paypal_alum.php
12 comments
Blah Blah Blah. Social networking was crucial for a country of highly oppressed people to overthrow their tyrannical government. Doctors can identify diseases from their phone in a way that would have taken days, we can de-salt water in way that is practical. New times, new problems.
Our generation is pushing innovation at a speed that is unparalleled, don't confuse the 47 fart apps in the app store as a complete misappropriation of focus.
Our generation is pushing innovation at a speed that is unparalleled, don't confuse the 47 fart apps in the app store as a complete misappropriation of focus.
Blah Blah Blah.
Normally, I ignore such responses, but how could I resist bait like that?
Social networking was crucial for a country of high oppressed people to overthrow their tyrannical government.
Ahh, the jury's still out on that one. Let's see how much less tyrannical the next government is. I bet not much.
Doctors can identify diseases from their phone in a way that would have taken days
To what purpose? This is the first generation with worse health and life expectency than its parents. What good is providing so much technology at so much cost to those who push so little value out of the other end of the pipeline?
New times, new problems
No question. All I'm wondering is, "Where is the new value?"
Our generation is pushing innovation at a speed that is unparalleled
Versus what? Citing, please.
Hmmm, lets see...
From 1910 to 1960: The masses received first value from the automobile, the airplane, the telephone, radio, television, electricity, indoor plumbing, sewage treatment, and antibiotics.
From 1960 to 2010: We can carry our phones with us. Cool.
don't confuse the 47 fart apps in the app store as a complete misappropriation of focus
Opps, I completely forgot about smart phones. I was referring to all the instant communications we now have that produce so much activity and so little value. Is that all we've got?
Normally, I ignore such responses, but how could I resist bait like that?
Social networking was crucial for a country of high oppressed people to overthrow their tyrannical government.
Ahh, the jury's still out on that one. Let's see how much less tyrannical the next government is. I bet not much.
Doctors can identify diseases from their phone in a way that would have taken days
To what purpose? This is the first generation with worse health and life expectency than its parents. What good is providing so much technology at so much cost to those who push so little value out of the other end of the pipeline?
New times, new problems
No question. All I'm wondering is, "Where is the new value?"
Our generation is pushing innovation at a speed that is unparalleled
Versus what? Citing, please.
Hmmm, lets see...
From 1910 to 1960: The masses received first value from the automobile, the airplane, the telephone, radio, television, electricity, indoor plumbing, sewage treatment, and antibiotics.
From 1960 to 2010: We can carry our phones with us. Cool.
don't confuse the 47 fart apps in the app store as a complete misappropriation of focus
Opps, I completely forgot about smart phones. I was referring to all the instant communications we now have that produce so much activity and so little value. Is that all we've got?
> From 1910 to 1960: The masses received first value from the automobile, the airplane, the telephone, radio, television, electricity, indoor plumbing, sewage treatment, and antibiotics.
> From 1960 to 2010: We can carry our phones with us. Cool.
Not to be overly pedantic, but just to compare correct time periods: electrical distribution really got running in the 1890s, the telephone also is from the late 1800s, etc.
1960 to 2010 brought space exploration, the internet, economical airplane travel, computers, all sorts of cures/treatments for diseases, pretty much 100% of what is now called microbiology, and yes.. even mobile phones.
Just 15 years ago it was such a pain to get things done, due to the lack of widespread web and email. Some may say otherwise, but I feel life is much easier now - at least for those who can use the technologies well.
Not to be overly pedantic, but just to compare correct time periods: electrical distribution really got running in the 1890s, the telephone also is from the late 1800s, etc.
1960 to 2010 brought space exploration, the internet, economical airplane travel, computers, all sorts of cures/treatments for diseases, pretty much 100% of what is now called microbiology, and yes.. even mobile phones.
Just 15 years ago it was such a pain to get things done, due to the lack of widespread web and email. Some may say otherwise, but I feel life is much easier now - at least for those who can use the technologies well.
The pace of innovation in America has slowed, though, as the government has consumed a greater share of GDP. For example, cellphone technology was invented in 1947 but was stifled by the FCC for a generation.
This is the first generation with worse health and life expectency than its parents.
Could you explain why you believe this? The simple timeseries tells a different story.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_le...
Could you explain why you believe this? The simple timeseries tells a different story.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_le...
[deleted]
> I was referring to all the instant communications we now have that produce so much activity and so little value. Is that all we've got?
We are more connected with people than ever. And future generations will be even more so. I get that there's a general sentiment that spending more time on Facebook or Twitter isn't valuable "real people time." But I'll be contrarian and say it is.
I've kept in touch with more of the people I care about AND have deeper relationships with them because of social software and mobile communications tech. Yes, because of Facebook, Skype, and the panoply of other innovations that may seem like just pointless activity.
We are more connected with people than ever. And future generations will be even more so. I get that there's a general sentiment that spending more time on Facebook or Twitter isn't valuable "real people time." But I'll be contrarian and say it is.
I've kept in touch with more of the people I care about AND have deeper relationships with them because of social software and mobile communications tech. Yes, because of Facebook, Skype, and the panoply of other innovations that may seem like just pointless activity.
Social networking was crucial for a country of highly oppressed people to overthrow their tyrannical government.
No, not really. It might surprise you, but repressive regimes have been overthrown for centuries before Facebook. What really helped was high food prices, historically a harbinger of political change. Social media was marginal.
No, not really. It might surprise you, but repressive regimes have been overthrown for centuries before Facebook. What really helped was high food prices, historically a harbinger of political change. Social media was marginal.
Try convincing 500 of your rebel friends to meet in a poorly lit restaurant before you march the capital by yelling out the window.
Now try telling them on your facebook wall.
Lets see who pushes change.
Now try telling them on your facebook wall.
Lets see who pushes change.
The government can see your Facebook wall. If you don't yell it out the window but pass the message along by more subtle means, the government will have to go to more effort to find out what was said at the poorly lit restaurant.
The problem isn't telling people about it---again, rebels have communicated with each other since there have been governments to rebel against. The exact means of communication is irrelevant (obviously, since revolutions have happened in the age of print, telegraph, telephony, television, and now the Internet). The problem is motivating ordinary people to actually take action, and that depends on socio-economic factors that have nothing to do with technology. What you're seeing in the Middle East is how business has been done there for thousands of years. It's how these countries change their government in the absence of any stable democratic traditions. Or rather, it is their democratic tradition to change regimes this way.
Yeah really. Incredible innovations affecting people's daily lives all over the world. Peter comes across as somebody who prefers his parents generation's view of how great it used to be to all the exciting and empowering stuff happening today.
China has no problem taking on projects like these.
It's very naive to tout the benefits of central authority without considering the costs. A government that has the power to push through massive public projects isn't going stop there.
One of the main reasons projects on this scale are so difficult to organize is that there are so many independent stakeholders with diverging interests. Glorifying the state's ability to steamroll these interests for the sake of 'progress' is dangerous stuff.
It's very naive to tout the benefits of central authority without considering the costs. A government that has the power to push through massive public projects isn't going stop there.
One of the main reasons projects on this scale are so difficult to organize is that there are so many independent stakeholders with diverging interests. Glorifying the state's ability to steamroll these interests for the sake of 'progress' is dangerous stuff.
Do you have any examples of egregious civil rights violations as a consequence of the moon mission? I mean, having some sense of investing in your country and future doesn't mean you have to massacre people in Tiananmen square.
The same politicians and ideas that motivated funding for those missions were directly responsible for horrific wars in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and many other countries during that period. I'd gladly trade our man on the moon to erase those wars and the philosophy that led to them from our history.
In sum: fuck nationalism.
In sum: fuck nationalism.
Generally speaking, the politicians most in favor of nationalistic wars are those who are most opposed to domestic infrastructure speaking. Just saying.
Which politicians are favor nationalistic wars but oppose to domestic infrastructure?
Off the top of my head, the Chinese seem to favor both. The old regime in Iraq also had a penchant for both as well. Going back further, Japanese and German nationalists also were huge proponents of both big domestic infrastructure projects and nationalistic wars.
If you are looking at US politics, the wars mentioned by danenania were all started by US politicians who were also proponents of big infrastructure (Truman, Kennedy, Nixon). I don't think they were nationalistic wars, however.
Am I missing something here?
(Note: I'm ignoring former Communists, since Communism officially disavowed nationalism. In cases of other nationalistic wars, e.g. Rwanda or Kosovo, I don't know the opinions of politicians on infrastructure.)
Off the top of my head, the Chinese seem to favor both. The old regime in Iraq also had a penchant for both as well. Going back further, Japanese and German nationalists also were huge proponents of both big domestic infrastructure projects and nationalistic wars.
If you are looking at US politics, the wars mentioned by danenania were all started by US politicians who were also proponents of big infrastructure (Truman, Kennedy, Nixon). I don't think they were nationalistic wars, however.
Am I missing something here?
(Note: I'm ignoring former Communists, since Communism officially disavowed nationalism. In cases of other nationalistic wars, e.g. Rwanda or Kosovo, I don't know the opinions of politicians on infrastructure.)
How about the entire modern conservative movement? I'll reiterate my "generally speaking" qualifier because I'm not trying to pigeonhole any individuals, but I'd say that "in favor of nationalistic wars and cutting domestic spending" is pretty much the 1 sentence description of anyone who gets a good reception on Fox News.
The modern chinese pretty much stay out of the war thing. They got Tibet and that's all they care about.
Communism, well, yeah they said that, but it was really only true for a brief period in between China going communist (solidarity!) and Nixon going to China (they're enemies now!).
EDIT: Also, re: nationalistic wars, I agree on all except for Nixon not wanting to leave Vietnam. There's no other explanation for "peace with honor" besides nationalism and pride. That only half counts since he didn't start it, of course.
The modern chinese pretty much stay out of the war thing. They got Tibet and that's all they care about.
Communism, well, yeah they said that, but it was really only true for a brief period in between China going communist (solidarity!) and Nixon going to China (they're enemies now!).
EDIT: Also, re: nationalistic wars, I agree on all except for Nixon not wanting to leave Vietnam. There's no other explanation for "peace with honor" besides nationalism and pride. That only half counts since he didn't start it, of course.
Apparently you are only paying any attention to what "conservatives" say on Fox News, not the policies they implement.
The policies they implement??????
Bro. The Iraq war happened. John Boehner is speaker of the house right now, they're in a huge budget standoff over slashing domestic spending (while ignoring military spending and entitlements).
Hence, "the modern conservative movement is about nationalistic military stances and cutting domestic spending". This isn't really a hard statement to substantiate.
Bro. The Iraq war happened. John Boehner is speaker of the house right now, they're in a huge budget standoff over slashing domestic spending (while ignoring military spending and entitlements).
Hence, "the modern conservative movement is about nationalistic military stances and cutting domestic spending". This isn't really a hard statement to substantiate.
Ehh, let's be real. Republicans spend just as much domestically as Democrats, they just favor different industries and utilize different accounting scams.
We effectively have a one-party system in the US.
We effectively have a one-party system in the US.
Maybe so, though the space program is a clear exception and I think there are plenty of others--the modern 'neoconservative' platform, for example, pushes for high levels of both military and domestic spending, and is firmly rooted in nationalism. The point is that unchecked domestic power generally implies unchecked military power. And then there's the secret police...
All those things you said are government projects. We just tried a grand experiment to see if we could usher in a new era of healthcare and were met with strong resistance, oddly enough, from the _very same generation_ widely credited with producing all of those things (Interstate, Manhattan project, space program) that you mentioned. Those radical free-thinking minds are now more conservative as they grow older, those notions of revolution are replaced by memories and a strong desire to put things back to "how they used to be".
Now, people in their 20s and 30s, the ones that are supposed to be revolutionary, are worried about finding jobs, putting food on the table, and keeping work so that they can keep their healthcare plan. So, the big companies that used to work on big things and revolutionary technology, can now focus on extracting as much profit per product as they can (not that they didn't before, but there was, as you and this article admits freely, more focus on radical innovation and Doing Big Things). Instead of "revolutionary new products and projects" we get "refreshes" and marketing of said refreshes as "revolutionary". The bottom line is more secure, the worker subjugated, and thus the Empire retreats, stage right.
Now, people in their 20s and 30s, the ones that are supposed to be revolutionary, are worried about finding jobs, putting food on the table, and keeping work so that they can keep their healthcare plan. So, the big companies that used to work on big things and revolutionary technology, can now focus on extracting as much profit per product as they can (not that they didn't before, but there was, as you and this article admits freely, more focus on radical innovation and Doing Big Things). Instead of "revolutionary new products and projects" we get "refreshes" and marketing of said refreshes as "revolutionary". The bottom line is more secure, the worker subjugated, and thus the Empire retreats, stage right.
You are confusing your generations. The people currently in power are 50-70 years old, ie born in 1940-1960. They were children during the WWII era and Eisenhower administration, and had nothing to do with the Bomb, the Apollo program or interstates.
For example, Feynman, one of the "young kids" of the Manhattan project, was born in 1918.
For example, Feynman, one of the "young kids" of the Manhattan project, was born in 1918.
So, it's the Baby Boomers, the _children_ of the Greatest Generation that did all those great government infrastructure and technology buildouts, who are holding us back from being able to do those great things again? My mistake, then!
But then it begs the question: Why do they want to do that?
But then it begs the question: Why do they want to do that?
I really have a problem with the labeling "Greatest Generation". It seems misplaced given the entire history of the USA and the constant struggle to be better. It also shows a pretty horrible sense of history about the founders, and it forgets that the whole point is to make sure the next generation is greater than the current.
If the next generation isn't "greater", then the USA is in decline and the one who didn't enable their children to be greater shouldn't be held up as greatest.
If the next generation isn't "greater", then the USA is in decline and the one who didn't enable their children to be greater shouldn't be held up as greatest.
I believe, and think I do so based on reasonable evidence, that the "Greatest Generation" was in fact particularly good, and the Baby Boomers were quite possibly the worst cohort in the US of all time. Gen X was probably on par with the Greatest Generation in many ways, and Gen Y/Mill are too soon to tell, but certainly appear better than Baby Boomers.
Strauss and Howe's book "Generations" or "Fourth Turning" seems pretty reasonable. (http://www.timepage.org/time.html)
While I might not push the "redact the boomers" button (maybe...), it would pretty much fix all of the major problems in the US. Their outsize numbers have imposed a lot of costs on society, so even if their politics and economics weren't also destructive, they would have seriously stressed medicare and social security. Couple that with that seems to be the worst of both conservatism (lack of investment) and liberalism (lack of discipline), and they're a serious threat.
Strauss and Howe's book "Generations" or "Fourth Turning" seems pretty reasonable. (http://www.timepage.org/time.html)
While I might not push the "redact the boomers" button (maybe...), it would pretty much fix all of the major problems in the US. Their outsize numbers have imposed a lot of costs on society, so even if their politics and economics weren't also destructive, they would have seriously stressed medicare and social security. Couple that with that seems to be the worst of both conservatism (lack of investment) and liberalism (lack of discipline), and they're a serious threat.
I guess my central thesis is if generation n didn't teach/push generation n+1 to be better than them, then they failed at continuing the chain and don't deserve the title.
I think Wilson and FDR's group did more damage to the future US generations than the Baby Boomers did.
I think Wilson and FDR's group did more damage to the future US generations than the Baby Boomers did.
I don't think there's a lack of radical innovation. maybe it's less concentrated in silicon valley , but all across the u.s. and worldwide you can see radical innovations unfolding.
Things like robotics and artificial intelligence are probably the most radical technologies since the industrial revolution. probably much more radical.
And what about clean energy and clean technology ? the solution to the biggest problem of the 21th century ? and on the way make our chemical manufacturing clean ?
And what about stem cells ? they hold the potential to be a cure to many chronic diseases.
And telepresence , the holodeck at every home?
Things just take time , that's all.
Things like robotics and artificial intelligence are probably the most radical technologies since the industrial revolution. probably much more radical.
And what about clean energy and clean technology ? the solution to the biggest problem of the 21th century ? and on the way make our chemical manufacturing clean ?
And what about stem cells ? they hold the potential to be a cure to many chronic diseases.
And telepresence , the holodeck at every home?
Things just take time , that's all.
It's a strange example to use in a story bemoaning the decline in startup innovation as well, since the interstate highway system and the Manhattan Project were not exactly things done by startups.
Yeah, particularly strange for somebody who sees himself as a libertarian. Oh well. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
I don't think you can compare generational innovation. These things are all relative. It's hard for me to believe that today's minds who are building a supercomputer that can reproduce human logic and understanding couldn't produce the Manhattan Project.
We aren't becoming more short-term focused, rather the future is shrinking. A 20 year time frame in past generations is now 3 years. In this day, if you have a long-term scope and vision you will become obsolete in five years. Adaptation is crucial to innovation as well.
We aren't becoming more short-term focused, rather the future is shrinking. A 20 year time frame in past generations is now 3 years. In this day, if you have a long-term scope and vision you will become obsolete in five years. Adaptation is crucial to innovation as well.
I'd love to find links to old newspaper articles talking about building interstate highways and such. Doing nearly anything today seems like it is near impossible. The costs, the time, and the political divisiveness (at even the city local level) makes doing a monorail or adding a line seem like Roe v Wade.
The health care debate in the U.S is a microcosm of all this. The only thing that people argue about is how much more money we're going to spend on it, and we already spend far more, as a percentage of GDP, on health care than any other nation.
Any solution that has to do with process innovation, technology innovation or any sort of thing that would otherwise upset the status quo besides more money is largely ignored. There are so many vested interest involved that the only thing they can all support is even more money being poured down the same old rathole.
Any solution that has to do with process innovation, technology innovation or any sort of thing that would otherwise upset the status quo besides more money is largely ignored. There are so many vested interest involved that the only thing they can all support is even more money being poured down the same old rathole.
I think one of the big reasons you don't see startups changing the world anymore is that the name of the game has changed from 'go public' to 'get acquired'. Many game changing technologies that big companies have released in the past 10 years (since the dot-com crash) have been through acquisition. With the IPO market now completely stagnant, its nearly impossible to aim for a public offering... and your investors want an exit.
Its not about changes in innovation, its about changes in exit strategy.
Its not about changes in innovation, its about changes in exit strategy.
I'm not one to bash software, but software only goes so far in radical innovation.
I think the reason you don't have the radical innovation is because everything has tipped heavily towards web and consumer/convenience oriented innovation. This isn't a bad thing, the costs for writing code are much smaller than R&D costs for most anything else, and it puts people to work and solves problems.
There are still some companies like Tesla/SolarCity in the valley (or technically, on the East bay) changing the name of the game, but even Tesla is valued less than Groupon, for instance.
I think the reason you don't have the radical innovation is because everything has tipped heavily towards web and consumer/convenience oriented innovation. This isn't a bad thing, the costs for writing code are much smaller than R&D costs for most anything else, and it puts people to work and solves problems.
There are still some companies like Tesla/SolarCity in the valley (or technically, on the East bay) changing the name of the game, but even Tesla is valued less than Groupon, for instance.
I think this is one of the key factors: most of the buzz today is orienting on what amounts to entertainment for the moneyed. Since the moneyed, well, have money, they buy it, and thus the company does well.
What makes my life 1% more fun does nothing for someone in a third-world country. This is compared to, say, 50 years ago, where something that made my life better, e.g., an advance in refrigeration tech, could be distributed out to the third world better. I'm pulling examples out of a hat here, and I'm sure that other and better examples could be found.
There are a ton of more fundamental projects done by companies, people, and universities out there. But they don't get the buzz right now, generally speaking.
What makes my life 1% more fun does nothing for someone in a third-world country. This is compared to, say, 50 years ago, where something that made my life better, e.g., an advance in refrigeration tech, could be distributed out to the third world better. I'm pulling examples out of a hat here, and I'm sure that other and better examples could be found.
There are a ton of more fundamental projects done by companies, people, and universities out there. But they don't get the buzz right now, generally speaking.
Is this a problem just in the US? Why don't we see more tech IPOs in other countries such as Canada?
Canada lacks the startup ecosystem (so few homegrown IPOs), and changing countries is tricky.
Moving your flag while keeping your offices in the US is even trickier - you run into risks like double taxation (e.g., paying taxes on profits in Canada, then paying taxes in the US when you move the money from Canada to the US).
Also, the benefits of being traded on TMX are not as large as the benefits of being traded on NASDAQ. Lower liquidity, the "huh?" factor, etc. That could change if many companies move to TMX, but there is a Chicken&Egg problem here.
Moving your flag while keeping your offices in the US is even trickier - you run into risks like double taxation (e.g., paying taxes on profits in Canada, then paying taxes in the US when you move the money from Canada to the US).
Also, the benefits of being traded on TMX are not as large as the benefits of being traded on NASDAQ. Lower liquidity, the "huh?" factor, etc. That could change if many companies move to TMX, but there is a Chicken&Egg problem here.
Max Levchin: Groupon is probably under-valued. The fastest growing company ever. I came across a startup recently that had a Powerpoint and no engineers, no product and it had a $16 million valuation. That's an over-valued company.
Interesting how different his opinion of Groupon's valuation is from the prevailing sentiment.
Interesting how different his opinion of Groupon's valuation is from the prevailing sentiment.
Groupon has had pretty huge revenue growth and is currently bringing in some hundreds of millions of dollars a year in revenue.
Skepticism about the ability to maintain that growth rate, and the suspicion of many (especially here) that they're burning bridges with the companies they work with put a high valuation in doubt, but that's a matter of opinion at this point. Evidence that Groupon is having any trouble finding partners to offer coupons is so far anecdotal.
I never thought there'd be this much money in coupons, but so far it looks like it's a great business model. It wouldn't shock me if those valuations were true.
Skepticism about the ability to maintain that growth rate, and the suspicion of many (especially here) that they're burning bridges with the companies they work with put a high valuation in doubt, but that's a matter of opinion at this point. Evidence that Groupon is having any trouble finding partners to offer coupons is so far anecdotal.
I never thought there'd be this much money in coupons, but so far it looks like it's a great business model. It wouldn't shock me if those valuations were true.
How does "valuations are all over the map" jive with "there is no bubble in tech"? If a lot of tech companies are being systematically overvalued, isn't that the definition of a tech bubble?
It's also no secret that monetary policy is as loose as ever, so it doesn't take a lot of dot-connecting to see which forces are driving these valuations, especially with Fed bedfellows like Goldman are getting involved. Would people be so willing to throw their cash behind 10-100x PE companies if they had to obtain that cash at market rates and without implicit government backstopping of losses? I'm sure no one involved in tech investing wants to recognize this situation for what it is, but come on now, anyone can see that something's fishy.
It's also no secret that monetary policy is as loose as ever, so it doesn't take a lot of dot-connecting to see which forces are driving these valuations, especially with Fed bedfellows like Goldman are getting involved. Would people be so willing to throw their cash behind 10-100x PE companies if they had to obtain that cash at market rates and without implicit government backstopping of losses? I'm sure no one involved in tech investing wants to recognize this situation for what it is, but come on now, anyone can see that something's fishy.
I think a tech bubble generally means that nearly everyone is overvalued.
A sector being overvalued as a whole isn't enough? Perhaps the bubble is really focused on particular segments within what is generally known as 'tech', but it still seems like the most appropriate label.
I didn't realize they said the sector was overvalued as a whole. That is sufficient. I just caught the part that valuations were all over the map, which to me means that some companies are overvalued and others undervalued, but no significant trend one way or the other.
[deleted]
1950-2000 was one of those rare moments in history when industries (whole states, countries even) could coast on regular, incremental improvements to a single world-changing technology. SV was in the right place at the right time, and never totally lost it's edge. But the semiconductor and software industries are mature now, and spread much more widely than thirty years ago. SV still retains many advantages, but you can't get blood from a stone. The radical, disruptive stage of digital technology is over.
Money quote: "Too many companies are featurettes."
They're right. Silicon Valley has become enamored with the overnight success, which is usually attributable to fashion rather than innovation. Real innovation often takes a long time to catch on, since by definition it goes against conventional wisdom. VCs don't want to get rich slowly, and entrepreneurs are following their lead in chasing hockey-stick growth curves, which are a lot easier to come by in fashion than they are in technology.
That was a great event, and that discussion sparked quite a bit of debate between my two friends and me over dinner afterwards. (Actually, you can see the three of us sitting in the front-right-most seats in the photo!)
In my opinion, the notion of "radical innovation" depends on one's point of view: one could argue that, although the spectacular innovation during the space race, e.g, like landing a man on the moon, was indeed remarkable, it was, for all practical intents and purposes, little more than a political publicity stunt to the average individual, i.e., it did not have a profound effect on a personal level.
In contrast, the developments of the past 20 years -- internet, cell phone, facebook -- have profoundly changed individuals around the planet.
I don't think the question should be whether a thing is more or less innovative than another thing, but rather what effect the thing has had on a group of people on an individual level.
In my opinion, the notion of "radical innovation" depends on one's point of view: one could argue that, although the spectacular innovation during the space race, e.g, like landing a man on the moon, was indeed remarkable, it was, for all practical intents and purposes, little more than a political publicity stunt to the average individual, i.e., it did not have a profound effect on a personal level.
In contrast, the developments of the past 20 years -- internet, cell phone, facebook -- have profoundly changed individuals around the planet.
I don't think the question should be whether a thing is more or less innovative than another thing, but rather what effect the thing has had on a group of people on an individual level.
You can't expect radical innovation every day. It takes time, just like it took time to build streets, cars, airplanes and mobile phones (50-100 years). We could however hope that the intervals between radical innovations are shorter, now that we have a more efficient way to use technology.
IMO Google brought radical innovation and it is only what, 10-12 years old? The next big thing is probably in works, but we can't foresee the future so we'll know that is radical, when it's here.
IMO Google brought radical innovation and it is only what, 10-12 years old? The next big thing is probably in works, but we can't foresee the future so we'll know that is radical, when it's here.
Peter Thiel: "Everything is short-term focused no one is looking into the future, 15 to 20 years like they used to in our parents' generation. A lot of what our parents generation did: building interstate highways, Manhattan Project, etc, could not be done today."
This from a huge libertarian?
This from a huge libertarian?
This from a huge libertarian?
Being a libertarian doesn't conflict with wanting to be forward looking, or with wanting to do ambitious projects. And a "small 'l' libertarian" might even be OK with the State managing the construction of something like the Interstate highway system. A "Big 'L' Libertarian" would oppose funding such a project through coercive, involuntary taxation, but wouldn't necessarily oppose the idea in itself. They would just argue that a means of funding should be found that doesn't involve coercion.
That said, I don't know Peter Thiel and I don't know how deeply his libertarian roots run, or how much of an ideologue he is. There are a lot of people who call themselves libertarians that I wouldn't necessarily call libertarians myself. <shrug />
Being a libertarian doesn't conflict with wanting to be forward looking, or with wanting to do ambitious projects. And a "small 'l' libertarian" might even be OK with the State managing the construction of something like the Interstate highway system. A "Big 'L' Libertarian" would oppose funding such a project through coercive, involuntary taxation, but wouldn't necessarily oppose the idea in itself. They would just argue that a means of funding should be found that doesn't involve coercion.
That said, I don't know Peter Thiel and I don't know how deeply his libertarian roots run, or how much of an ideologue he is. There are a lot of people who call themselves libertarians that I wouldn't necessarily call libertarians myself. <shrug />
Libertarian has been diluted to meaningless.
These days, if you go by majority vote, it generally means "doctrinaire conservative who decided deficits were really important on January 20th, 2009".
These days, if you go by majority vote, it generally means "doctrinaire conservative who decided deficits were really important on January 20th, 2009".
Here are some articles by libertarians criticizing deficits as early as 2004.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf
http://reason.com/archives/2005/02/13/revive-gramm-rudmann
http://reason.com/archives/2007/02/12/the-beltway-cut
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp87.pdf
http://reason.com/archives/2005/02/13/revive-gramm-rudmann
http://reason.com/archives/2007/02/12/the-beltway-cut
I'm sure you can find a token libertarian criticism in between enabling these guys every other spare second. Ron Paul even opposed the war in Iraq. (I'll give that guy credit for being principled even though half of his opinions are loony-bin crazy).
But I'm talking about the totality -- check out Fox News and the Tea Party if you want the beating heart of the conservative movement. These are the exact same people, not figuratively, literally, who defended the Bush admin for 8 straight years. And CATO? How many pieces did they put out as cover for the Bush admin during that same time period? They're basically part of the republican messaging system.
But I'm talking about the totality -- check out Fox News and the Tea Party if you want the beating heart of the conservative movement. These are the exact same people, not figuratively, literally, who defended the Bush admin for 8 straight years. And CATO? How many pieces did they put out as cover for the Bush admin during that same time period? They're basically part of the republican messaging system.
"(I'll give that guy credit for being principled even though half of his opinions are loony-bin crazy)"
Which opinions? I doubt you comprehend the first thing about any of them. Let's see if you can even restate them correctly.
P.S. You can disagree with someone without mudslinging. I disagree with Paul on a number of things as well, but all his ideas have a large amount of thought and scholarship behind them (a hell of a lot more than anything the establishment parties come up with). Dismissing them out of hand with no backup is definitely below the standard HN tries to reach.
Which opinions? I doubt you comprehend the first thing about any of them. Let's see if you can even restate them correctly.
P.S. You can disagree with someone without mudslinging. I disagree with Paul on a number of things as well, but all his ideas have a large amount of thought and scholarship behind them (a hell of a lot more than anything the establishment parties come up with). Dismissing them out of hand with no backup is definitely below the standard HN tries to reach.
Two words: Gold Standard.
I'm not falling into that "restate them correctly" trap where you interpret some phrase differently than me so I'm an idiot. Gold standard is crazy without even needing an explanation.
I'm not falling into that "restate them correctly" trap where you interpret some phrase differently than me so I'm an idiot. Gold standard is crazy without even needing an explanation.
Yeah, being able to restate an argument you've called crazy is a "trap". Give me a break.
Seriously, the goal here is to have mature discussions. If you aren't even willing to back up your assertions, just don't post.
Seriously, the goal here is to have mature discussions. If you aren't even willing to back up your assertions, just don't post.
Ok, "moving from fiat currency to gold-backed currency" is crazy. "Disbanding the federal reserve" is crazy. It would involve massively reducing the money supply and liquidity for the overall economy, and destroy the current counter-cyclical levers we have to lower/raise interests rates when we want to either stimulate the economy or cool down inflation. Take a look at the extreme boom/bust cycle from the late 19th century if you want to see what happens without those levers. There's a reason they went to fiat currency in the first place, and it wasn't, "I'm a liberal caricature and I want to do this to increase government control". It's because the gold standard wasn't adequate to the job. Let alone that there's no way to get from here to there in the modern world where the entire G20 has fiat currencies.
The gold standard is a position of "I don't care what's been proven to work in the real world or what's possible to actually accomplish, I care about what I find emotionally satisfying".
EDIT: Regarding civil discussions, you might consider chilling out on the ad hom attacks yourself. You've called me uninformed multiple times while misinterpreting my comments to mean something that I don't see any possible way to construe from what I said. Bringing Chinese actions from the 1950s and 60s into a discussion of "modern china's" propensity for militarism above, as if anyone would consider maoist China the same thing as the current regime, and implying that I had no idea such events happened.
The gold standard is a position of "I don't care what's been proven to work in the real world or what's possible to actually accomplish, I care about what I find emotionally satisfying".
EDIT: Regarding civil discussions, you might consider chilling out on the ad hom attacks yourself. You've called me uninformed multiple times while misinterpreting my comments to mean something that I don't see any possible way to construe from what I said. Bringing Chinese actions from the 1950s and 60s into a discussion of "modern china's" propensity for militarism above, as if anyone would consider maoist China the same thing as the current regime, and implying that I had no idea such events happened.
Look, the Fed printing money doesn't "stimulate" anything except the balance sheets of its own member banks and their friends. It is functionally equivalent to counterfeiting on a mass scale. Why do you think counterfeiting is illegal? It gives the counterfeiter a (stolen) financial benefit, then dilutes the value of existing money. Anyone posting on a hacker forum should understand this basic functional relationship. It really isn't hard to grasp. Inflation doesn't create wealth. It transfers wealth. It's not very difficult to see which direction it's being transferred. Trying to stop this is not 'crazy'. It's common sense.
International food prices recently hit an all time high. Americans really need to wake up from their fantasies quick. Their incredible ignorance of how their leaders operate is costing the world a nearly unimaginable toll of suffering and death, and it's getting worse every day.
International food prices recently hit an all time high. Americans really need to wake up from their fantasies quick. Their incredible ignorance of how their leaders operate is costing the world a nearly unimaginable toll of suffering and death, and it's getting worse every day.
Lowering the interest rate isn't printing money, it's making the money they print to give out as loans to corrupt banks cheaper to obtain, thereby causing them to print more of it. Where do you think they get the money for these loans? The Fed's whole reason for existence is to create money. Greenspan or Bernanke would tell you that.
Lowering the interest rate is not equivalent to printing money. If you want to redefine terms, you can prove whatever you want to prove.
The Federal Reserve has responsibility for both interest rates and creation of money (check out the Wikipedia page). I believe the parent was referring to the Fed increasing M0, the base money supply. Interesting things have been happening to M0 over the past couple of years. Also, the Fed sets reserve requirements on the banks, which directly affects how much money they (the banks) can create (M1 and higher).
I just did a quick google search, and picked the first few items from prior years.
Here is the Cato archive, form your own opinion: http://www.cato.org/pubarchives/index.php?type=opeds#year=20...
For the one month I bothered to look at, most of it seemed pretty anti-bush (with the exception of one article advocating for looser immigration rules).
Here is the Cato archive, form your own opinion: http://www.cato.org/pubarchives/index.php?type=opeds#year=20...
For the one month I bothered to look at, most of it seemed pretty anti-bush (with the exception of one article advocating for looser immigration rules).
Well, ok, maybe I was unfair to Cato there by lumping them in with the rest of the republican messaging organizations. From a quick glance it does seem like they were calling out Bush on libertarian grounds when it was appropriate to do so.
Anyways my original point was that if you add up all of the people calling themselves libertarian these days, you generally get the guy saying "keep the government out of medicare" who had no idea he was a libertarian until about 5 minutes after Obama was inaugurated. It's not about government, it's about Obama and all that he represents (liberals, anti-americanism, illegal immigrants, manchurian candidates, radical islam, etc etc etc crazy talk).
Sorry that your movement's been hijacked.
(notes that someone went down this thread blindly modding you up and me down -- this is what I'm talking about when I say sorry about your movement -- it's not about reasoned opinions on how government should work, it's about "us vs them" cultural warfare).
Anyways my original point was that if you add up all of the people calling themselves libertarian these days, you generally get the guy saying "keep the government out of medicare" who had no idea he was a libertarian until about 5 minutes after Obama was inaugurated. It's not about government, it's about Obama and all that he represents (liberals, anti-americanism, illegal immigrants, manchurian candidates, radical islam, etc etc etc crazy talk).
Sorry that your movement's been hijacked.
(notes that someone went down this thread blindly modding you up and me down -- this is what I'm talking about when I say sorry about your movement -- it's not about reasoned opinions on how government should work, it's about "us vs them" cultural warfare).
Has nothing to do with looking forward or doing ambitious projects - it has to do with your view of the private sector vs. the government.
Most of the libertarians I know would argue that the government has no business being involved in creating innovation - regardless of how it is funded. They would argue that government can't innovate and the private sector is where the market can decide what innovations will succeed.
And yes, Peter Thiel is a huge libertarian. I find it comical that he would then list off an entire list of government projects as examples of driving innovation.
Most of the libertarians I know would argue that the government has no business being involved in creating innovation - regardless of how it is funded. They would argue that government can't innovate and the private sector is where the market can decide what innovations will succeed.
And yes, Peter Thiel is a huge libertarian. I find it comical that he would then list off an entire list of government projects as examples of driving innovation.
True, although categorizing libertarians is about as easy as herding cats. But this whole sub-thread is already, IMO, way off-topic, so I'm not going to say anything more to perpetuate this whole discussion. I probably shouldn't have chimed in to begin with. <sigh />
Fundamental research isn't cheap or fast. Private investors aren't usually going to to take the long road until they can afford it.
Being the only remaining superpower (and having little global military competition) really takes the wind out of government's sails of achievement.
Interstate highways, the Manhattan project, the space program, national infrastructure, aerospace, much medical technology, and even computers were all borne out of military necessity. With so many bad guys around the globe, only a traitor could vote against these things.
Our parents built the stuff needed to save the world. We're building better ways to instantly share our bowel habits. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.