But
> Andreessen struck me as interesting because he made Netscape, the first real usable browser and it really did change things in a fundamental way. Then he ends up—caricaturing, but not too much—flacking Bored Ape NFTs. Obviously not a stupid man, but it’s got to feel like something of a comedown.
Krugman trying to take the piss while he literally makes his living off substack, an a16z funded platform designed to give creators very different platforms and thus finances than they had six years ago, and clearly doesn’t even know it is infuriating. Earlier he makes fun of Andreessen making fun of experts, and … it would be hilarious irony if people didn’t so heavily credential him to opine on things like this.
okay I stopped there. Perhaps the rest of the interview is super well informed and therefore based on reality enough to draw some useful conclusions.
That's some record level grandstanding.
Source: my publishing company published three books of Scotts essays during COVID, hit number one two and four on the essay category on Amazon, and generated less than one fiftieth of Scott’s first year of substack revenues based on his public comments.
If Marc Andreessen wants to fund a platform that enables and allows people to call him out on his fascistic bullshit and insane disconnect with humanity, it seems like a trap to say people shouldn't use it to do just that.
In fact it’s what makes substack a great platform - unlike medium which came before it and ad networks which came before that - substack gives a large percent of the value directly to content creators. And it’s seen as valuable by people from all over the political spectrum, from Tabibi to Krugman.
And I think people should go ahead and take the piss all they want, but crucially, when they are as credentialed as Krugman, if they do it in an uninformed way, it is great to call them on it. Bite the hand that feeds by all means, but some intellectual integrity about whether or not has beens like a16z provide any value to the world should be expected.
"How dare this vile journalist criticize a holy god techbro, while using a Web site?!"
Incidentally, here we are on HN, the lounge of junior techbros, which still systematically posts a piracy link for every paywalled news story. Krugman came from one of those revenue-starved news organizations that oblivious techbros are kicking while they're down. If some techbros then deign to toss Krugman some peanuts, for providing "content" on the techbro's property, Krugman should be thankful, and not dare bite the hand that feeds him?
There are bad people and idiots in this story, and it's not the journalist.
Building a platform that lets journalists choose their monetization and be independently wealthy enough to write what they want is awesome.
Using that platform to denigrate teams that built the same platform is intellectually lazy, terrible for inspiring the next generation of innovators and beneath Krugman.
That said I wouldnt be surprised if he makes more at substack annually than he did for the prize - about $1mm.
As to his own investment returns we don’t know, but early as 2016 he cautioned that apple google and Microsoft might be overvalued. If you imagine that diversification/defensive portfolio construction mindset stuck with him and he therefore underperformed the nasdaq since then we might expect something like 3xing his grant, meaning at 10% annual yield if he converted to using it for income he’d see 250-350k a year in income from the prize.
To be clear, I generally like Krugmans writing, I’ve learned a lot reading his essays, and I think he should make as much as he wants to make doing what he wants to do. But I’d like some intellectual rigor from him even when he’s talking about people he dislikes.
And what world to we live in if that should stop him from criticising?
It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers. There’s plenty of real things to complain about for almost any given tech titan; this was lazy incorrect journalism and it’s beneath Krugman.
Usually clickbait to me has some attempt to deceive the reader that the point their trying to make is more salacious than it actually is.
Contrast with the way academic departments are run, where there is a Chair and a Dean, but faculty rotate and serve in those roles for limited terms.
If they leverage their property to help centralize control, they're something other than libertarian.
example: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/when-...
Left authoritarians have more in common with Right authoritarians than with the broader Left. You saw this in Germany and Russia when their respective authoritarianisms collapsed and the same people simply changed teams.
The argument implicit in the headline is therefore perhaps better expressed as two thoughts: why did the tech right get tired of being ignored, and how did they go about flipping the authoritarian structures that already existed?
The deeper lie is that libertarianism is right wing. So-called right wing Libertarianism is fallacious - ultimately a product of the corporate neutering of political organization just like the main parties.
I certainly understand why right- "Libertarianism" is highly appealing - stick to these small core set of axioms, and you will be free, and everything that appears to be bad will actually be justified because it's merely a result of people exercising freedom. It makes it sound like we just need to simplify things. If we just perform a rewrite and avoid giving into the temptation to make bloat, don't you know we will all be free?
The fallacy is easy demonstrated, but requires the reader to suspend the mainstream indoctrination asserting a dichotomy between government and corporations (promulgated in the "Libertarian" dogma by the lemma that a corporation is definitionally incapable of exercising coercion).
In actuality - a government is a corporation, and corporations can exert coercive power like government. What we consider a corporation is merely a partial version of what we consider a government. If we're in need of a particular product or service and there are many corporations to choose from, we feel more free (just as if we could choose between multiple governments!). If there are only a handful of corporations to choose from, especially if the executives all implement similar policies in lockstep, then the dynamic feels much less free. If there is only one corporation to choose from, then we have a de facto government that can coerce us up to the limit of needing that product/service.
Essentially any authoritarian/totalitarian government can be transmuted into an axoimatic right-"Libertarian" utopia simply by reframing its government as a singular corporation with which every citizen has a lifelong contract of onerous terms. And so the only way to approach libertarianism is to set the metric as a society's constructive outcomes for its citizens having effective freedoms.
As for the original topic, the Thiel quote shows that Thiel never actually was a libertarian, or at least least as long as he's been relevant. Rather the only "freedom" he is interested in is his own "freedom" to coerce others. And as he's gained more power, that "freedom" mask has been slowly flaking off.
This is the exact shape of Silicon Valley's surveillance industry as a whole - "disrupting" the world merely to make centralized web/apps that exert fine-grained top down control. "Freedom" for their founders, not for their users. That's not freedom, it's just new systems of control. And now that this new crop of nouveau riche have entrenched themselves, they want to shamelessly start exercising their power.
Valley techno-capitalism has always existed in the context of (and as a function of) the military. I broadly agree with your characterization of corporate power as a tool governments use to delegate and aggregate economic control.
Over generational time scales I think regulatory frameworks will develop sufficient to mitigate tech’s worst excesses.
When they see the chance to seize the government and actively punish those groups they drop their fake ideals immediately.
Libertarians hate it when others claim that the defining property of libertarianism is taking liberties with that entire "where another person's freedom begins" thing.
Someone like Paul Krugman can’t comprehend the libertarian might think that Trump is the best of two bad options.
[flagged] Gilded Rage – Why Silicon Valley went from libertarian to authoritarian (paulkrugman.substack.com)
56 points by adamors 2 hours ago | flag | hide | past | favorite | 50 comments
techblueberry•3h ago
Because - like I want to live on an off-grid homestead in the middle of nowhere - that's my idea of freedom, but I don't get the impression that's Peter Thiel's definition of freedom. So maybe this is why they're realizing they have to have authoritarianism over the largest economy of the world in order to have their "freedom".
But one thing I think that's notable about a sort of schism in political thinking; is that it's interesting that the far left would say that both parties are the same and that both are bought by billionaires, but it's amazing how much the billionares would seem to say the opposite; maybe the Democrats lost because they turned away from Silicon Valley and Musk pumped hundreds of millions into Trump's campaign?
dboreham•2h ago
nradov•2h ago
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/kamala-harris...
juujian•2h ago
That is a far cry from the open corruption of the Republican party however. Allowing the CEO of ExxonMobil to become the Secretary of State. Doing pay for play and accepting lavish gifts from Silicon Valley royalty. The Trump coin grift and dishing out pardons for crypto scammers.
Both sides is a gross oversimplification.
cudgy•2h ago
techblueberry•1h ago
Ekaros•1h ago
Now if oil companies are bad or good, is much more political question. And really up to voters. Vote for party which supports your political direction.
Apreche•2h ago
The Democratic establishment are in favor of maintaining the status quo, which is very favorable to corporations and the wealthy.
The Republicans think even the status quo isn’t billionaire friendly enough. They want to go as far as possible as quickly as possible to eliminate even more of the middle class. Their real goal is to disenfranchise labor entirely, hence the push for “AI” and eliminating jobs.
Of course billionaires prefer one over the other. But from the perspective of the left, both are unacceptable. Neither of these options will actually pull in the other direction, tax the rich, restore the wealth of the middle class, etc.
brightball•2h ago
Republicans started going after CDL drivers who were issued licenses when they can’t read road signs in English.
The result is basic economics…truckers who speak and read English get paid more now.
Whether we are talking about healthcare, student loans, public school or even housing…everywhere the federal firehose gets aimed in the name of helping things get more expensive and hurt the middle class.
The disaster that is the ACA was easy to see coming before it was even formed. The Ben Carson plan is the only economically viable plan that could have reduced the cost of healthcare, but we got ACA instead and costs have skyrocketed every since.
techblueberry•1h ago
jeffbee•33m ago
lapcat•2h ago
This is a hyperbole. The two parties are not exactly the same, though they are the same on a number of issues, such as support for the military-industrial complex and Israel. Here's what Noam Chomsky said: "In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies."
The way I would put it is that there are sane billionaires and insane billionaires, though they both have the economic interests of the billionaire class at heart. The insane billionaires want to disrupt everything and eat the world, while the sane billionaires just want to keep the quiet status quo of their dominance, and so they play "nice".
> maybe the Democrats lost because they turned away from Silicon Valley and Musk pumped hundreds of millions into Trump's campaign
I doubt that Musk's money changed the election outcome. Indeed, Musk's financial meddling in the subsequent Wisconsin Supreme Court election turned a lot of people against his candidate, who lost. The purpose of Musk's contributions was to buy influence with Trump, which worked, at least for a while.
MangoToupe•2h ago
georgefrowny•2h ago
Depending on how principled you want to be about what happens to the underclass, you have a choice. Either exert control privately, by removing state protections for people and using corporate strength. Or you can co-opt the existing government to act on your behalf. You can mix and match, where you weaken parts of government which protects and strengthen that which controls.
Whether the jackboots have a national emblem or a company logo on them doesn't make a lot of difference to the necks.
casey2•2h ago
Someone else might want to live were you live, who gets to decide who lives there? You both live in identical virtual copies. The goal is to sidestep politics entirely wherever it appears
Where it falls apart (aside from its total amorality) is that technological progress is secondary to scientific progress and if science says in 100 billion years the universe is over, then there is no technical solution, I don't want people increasing entropy and killing me sooner before then.
jeffbee•42m ago