Saturday’s Wall Street Journal has a fine Weekend Interview profile of venture capitalist Peter Thiel, an early investor in Facebook, noting “Mr. Thiel has dabbled in activism to the minor extent of co-hosting in Manhattan last month a fund raiser for gay Republicans” (actually, it was GOProud).
Interestingly, Thiel reflects about Obama, “I’m not sure I’d describe him as a socialist. I might even say he has a naïve and touching faith in capitalism. He believes you can impose all sorts of burdens on the system and it will still work.” Unfortunately, he adds, government has become too big and too inefficient to work, “throwing good money after bad,” and has put up too many regulatory barriers to innovation and growth. He notes, for example, how Sarbanes-Oxley resulted in a dearth of initial public offerings—new public companies based on innovative ideas that are the foundation for robust economic growth—which is part of the reason why “we’re stuck in a period of long-term stagnation.”
The great exception, Thiel says, has been information technology: “So far computers and the Internet have been the one sector immune from excessive regulation,” he observes. Yes, so far.
For me, the profile highlights how openly gay conservatives and LGBT progressives view the problems facing us, as Americans, in starkly different terms. Peter Thiel is the anti-Barney Frank.
More. Barney Frank spins about his responsiblity for the mortgage crisis.
11 Comments for “Restoring American Ingenuity”
posted by Bobby on
““I’m not sure I’d describe him as a socialist. I might even say he has a naïve and touching faith in capitalism. He believes you can impose all sorts of burdens on the system and it will still work.”
—He’s not sure he’s a socialist? Has he not read “Dreams FROM my father?”
I think it’s the liberals that are naive, progressives already know he’s one of them. Saul Alinsky, George Soros, Michael Moore, they all know Obama is working towards socialism. The fuhrer himself told an audience that he wants single-payer healthcare and “we’ll get there eventually.”
posted by Curt on
Please provide us with something refreshing rather than Republican talking points. I could almost understand the sentiment about government regulation if the financial system hadn’t brought down the economy. It has cost us in the trillions to bring it back and Mr. Thiel is complaining about govt. regulation. As a taxpayer and investor, I want some govt. regulation so I can invest in confidence. I honestly don’t trust Wall Street and I want the govt to be an effective traffic cop in the market.
posted by Jorge on
If intelligent commentary is being mistaken for “Republican talking points,” that’s pretty strong evidence that the Republicans may be right on the topic at hand.
posted by BobN on
Unfortunately for us, most of the “entrepreneurial spirit” of the last two decades in this country outside high tech has had more to do with rigging the rules and deceptive financial instruments than anything actually productive. Led by a GOP-dominated congress, deregulation allowed mankind’s basic greedy instincts to run wild.
As a result, we’re all paying the price.
posted by Jack on
How about the Carl Paladino. Those teagbaggers sure are a “good thing” for the gays, huh Rauch? How about you Mr Miller, do you like being called a “pervert” and accused of “brainwashing”, “targeting” and “destroying” children? Does any of the “conservatives” on this page or in the comments really think this guy is different from or worse than the Angles, Millers, Toomeys, Palins, McDonnells, Johnsons, etc.?
All your talk of “socialism” is ridiculous. Obama is a ineffectual wimp, a latter-day Neville Chamberlain who will stand by as the crazies take control and begin purging everyone they find to be an abomination.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The funny part is that Jack expects us to believe that the Obama Party differs any from the attitude of its base as exemplified by Louis Farrakhan.
Now, if Jack wants to come back and start screaming that it’s not fair to use one person’s words to paint multiple people, he can do so — and demonstrate that he’s a complete and total hypocrite.
posted by Jorge on
How about the Carl Paladino.
I knew if it had any substance whatsoever it was coming eventually: the charge that Carl Palladino is anti-gay. EVALUATE!
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/10/11/2010-10-11_carl_paladino_gay_pride_parade_bumping_and_grinding_offend_tea_party_hero__ny_go.html
Having watched the video of Carl getting grilled by Matt Lauer, defending himself, and acknowledging the worth of his gay nephew and employees, I now know exactly where he stands and am no longer undecided. I will discuss the matter with my other NY friends and spread the word: he’s okay.
Andrew Cuomo is refusing to debate Carl Palladino. Palladino may be a nut, but the New York State government is so dysfunctional that it is more important how far Cuomo will go to change it (quite a bit!).
posted by BobN on
It’s kind of sad, Jorge, to see that you’re so easily duped.
You say you know where he stands? Where does he stand?
posted by Jack on
Carl Paladino verbally delivered the comments attributed to him, whether they were written by a bigoted rabbi or not. Short of a temporary insanity plea, Paladino is responsible for the words he utters. I have no idea where the Farrakhan reference comes into this. You want to talk about “us[ing] one person’s words to paint multiple people” but I have no idea what this means. Paladino DID say those words regardless of who wrote them. Are you saying that Farrakhan writes Obama’s speeches? I think you are really just making ridiculous accusations of black supremacist thinking just because Obama and Farrakhan are both black. Look, Fred Phelps and I are both white, but he doesn’t influence my thinking for that reason.
The level of discourse among “conservative” commenters on this blog seems to be the following:
Democrats say they are pro-gay but are really anti-gay in the foul, evil, Stalin-loving hearts.
Republicans are publicly, sometimes explicitly, anti-gay but in their hearts are really friends of the gays who just don’t believe in “special rights”.
Short Jorge:
Cuomo marches with this kids in the Pride parade but he is really a closeted homophobe.
Paladino publicly says that gays are perverts who destroy children and he is “okay”.
This is crazy.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You want to talk about “us[ing] one person’s words to paint multiple people” but I have no idea what this means.
Liar.
How about the Carl Paladino. Those teagbaggers sure are a “good thing” for the gays, huh Rauch?
You said Paladino’s words indicate the attitude of all tea party participants.
Does any of the “conservatives” on this page or in the comments really think this guy is different from or worse than the Angles, Millers, Toomeys, Palins, McDonnells, Johnsons, etc.?
You stated that all of these individuals agree with Paladino.
Therefore, Farrakhan’s words represent all Obama Party members because Farrakhan is an Obama Party member, just as you claimed Paladino’s words represented all tea party participants and all of the politicians you mentioned.
Now spin some more and show us what a good little hypocrite you are. Better yet, why not tell us why you support dressing children as sex slaves and taking them to sex fairs to “show off” in front of naked and masturbating adults for an “educational experience”?
posted by Jorge on
It’s kind of sad, Jorge, to see that you’re so easily duped.
You say you know where he stands? Where does he stand?
He’s against gay marriage and will most likely veto that bill should it pass, as well as the anti-transgender discrimination law (which I do not support).
It’s apparent he is against anti-gay hate crimes and discrimination. As we saw, he looks down on the gay pride parade (so do I).
It is apparent that he has a more liberal view politically of homosexuality than he does of illegal immigration and welfare. I will not explain this.
Carl Paladino verbally delivered the comments attributed to him, whether they were written by a bigoted rabbi or not.
And he explained them to my satisfaction.
Cuomo marches with this kids in the Pride parade but he is really a closeted homophobe.
Cuomo is not a closeted homophobe for marching with his kids in the gay pride parade. But I do agree with Palladino that it is inappropriate to take one’s children to the gay pride parade in New York.
Paladino publicly says that gays are perverts who destroy children and he is “okay”.
Uh, excuse me, that is not what he said. If that was what he had said, our most unsympathetic Matt Lauer would have accused him of saying that. Get your facts straight, and suffer.