Peter Thiel Says Covid Marks 21st Century’s True Start(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Peter Thiel Says Covid Marks 21st Century’s True Start
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2020/12/03/peter-thiel-says-covid-marks-21st-centurys-true-start-spac-boom-surging-ev-stocks-are-a-sign/
87 comments
Even outside of that, 9/11 and the 2007 financial crisis aren’t trivial events that are just going to be skipped over. Especially depending on long term effects of the terrorism wars and how future people consider it’s relation to the growth of heavy surveillance, I could see it being considered the more important event.
Of course we don’t know the long term effects Covid is going to have yet, we’re still in the middle of it.
Of course we don’t know the long term effects Covid is going to have yet, we’re still in the middle of it.
Definitely agree 9/11 seemed to be the geopolitical event that really kicked off a different tone from the relative quiet of the Clinton years.
> Something else could easily eclipse Covid-19
I doubt people will talk about Covid-19 much at all by the end of the century.
The 1918 flu was much, much worse in total number of deaths, and even worse when you consider how many fewer people existed at that time, and it killed people in the prime of their lives. And by the year 2000 very few people knew about it at all.
I doubt people will talk about Covid-19 much at all by the end of the century.
The 1918 flu was much, much worse in total number of deaths, and even worse when you consider how many fewer people existed at that time, and it killed people in the prime of their lives. And by the year 2000 very few people knew about it at all.
Maybe. But a possible contributor for the 1918 flu pandemic's relative obscurity is that it overlapped with World War I and was followed within ~20 years by the Great Depression and World War II. It occurred during one of the most turbulent times in modern history.
In contrast, the 2020 pandemic is presently not sharing the spotlight. Maybe something of comparable impact will happen. Or maybe it'll be forgotten regardless. But I don't know that the 1918 pandemic's status is all that illustrative.
In contrast, the 2020 pandemic is presently not sharing the spotlight. Maybe something of comparable impact will happen. Or maybe it'll be forgotten regardless. But I don't know that the 1918 pandemic's status is all that illustrative.
I can only really think of two times in history where we talk about a major disease outbreak: the Black Death, and the Plague of Justinian, and the latter one is really marginal (unless you're covering Late Antiquity in detail, it's going to be unknown). Other than these two, there's the less specific discussion of disease during the New World colonization epoch.
I suspect that COVID-19 will replace the Spanish Flu as the "pandemic everyone talks about when there's a pandemic concern," but this is the sort of mention that requires explanation because it's not really part of the expected repertoire of history the same way the Black Death is.
I suspect that COVID-19 will replace the Spanish Flu as the "pandemic everyone talks about when there's a pandemic concern," but this is the sort of mention that requires explanation because it's not really part of the expected repertoire of history the same way the Black Death is.
The pandemic is dovetailing in interesting ways with other matters of geopolitical importance. I wouldn't say anything is stealing the spotlight from anything else but the confluence of events makes this moment feel like we might be crossing the Rubicon.
Agreed. The 1968 hong-kong flu killed between 1 and 4 million people. Nobody talks about that now. They didn't talk about it much then, either. Woodstock, which happened during that flu season, gets talked about more.
With this latest surge per-capita deaths from covid19 just passed the low end of the 1968 flu estimates.
With this latest surge per-capita deaths from covid19 just passed the low end of the 1968 flu estimates.
Something to be considered is that today's population is on average older than in 1968 and therefore there are more people vulnerable to respiratory illnesses than ever(*atleast before COVID19).
So are you saying the 1968 flu was worse, because per capita across the world it killed as many, or up to three times as many, people in a younger world? (so far, covid19 is not gone yet)
It was pretty bad. The flu has all the long term complications for some people that covid does - the lung problems, heart swelling, brain problems, etc.
I talk to people who were alive in 1968. It just wasn't really on anyone's radar. Rarely made headlines in the U.S.
It was pretty bad. The flu has all the long term complications for some people that covid does - the lung problems, heart swelling, brain problems, etc.
I talk to people who were alive in 1968. It just wasn't really on anyone's radar. Rarely made headlines in the U.S.
Economic effects of the virus may well be more long reaching though.
Don't conflate the virus with the lockdowns. Knock-on effects of the lockdowns - which were a choice by governments, not some inevitability - are projected to have far worse long-term effects.
I agree, but that is also part of what Thiel is talking about.
Sorry but no.
"It began on January 1, 2001, and ends on December 31, 2100"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century
"It began on January 1, 2001, and ends on December 31, 2100"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century
No. We define the centuries as the periods of 100 years beginning with the multiples of 100 in the year numbering system of the contextual calendar. The definition given by your reference is neither authoritative nor popular.
If you follow the definitions advocated by Wikipedia and its collection of sources, you end up in an absurd state where the decades[0] span multiple centuries. It's absurd and does not reflect popular usage.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s
If you follow the definitions advocated by Wikipedia and its collection of sources, you end up in an absurd state where the decades[0] span multiple centuries. It's absurd and does not reflect popular usage.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s
Why are you counting from 0?
What do you mean by not authoriative in this context? This is just how the Gregorian calendar works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini#No_year_zero:_star...
What do you mean by not authoriative in this context? This is just how the Gregorian calendar works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini#No_year_zero:_star...
Why are you counting from AD 1, which nobody alive at the time called AD 1?
It's natural to align the decades, centuries, an millennia with a decimal radix. You've got the year digit, the decade digit, the century digit, and the millennium digit. Decades are always talked about this way, e.g. "the 80's", and I'd wager that most people think about centuries and millenniums this way. The fact that the year number is defined as the ordinal year since the approximate birth of Christ, beginning with AD 1, doesn't strike me as particularly relevant.
In other words, I'm not "counting from" anything. I'm describing the decimal year number in a manner that's natural for the radix.
It's natural to align the decades, centuries, an millennia with a decimal radix. You've got the year digit, the decade digit, the century digit, and the millennium digit. Decades are always talked about this way, e.g. "the 80's", and I'd wager that most people think about centuries and millenniums this way. The fact that the year number is defined as the ordinal year since the approximate birth of Christ, beginning with AD 1, doesn't strike me as particularly relevant.
In other words, I'm not "counting from" anything. I'm describing the decimal year number in a manner that's natural for the radix.
It doesn't matter whether people of the time said AD 1 or not, because the BC/AD b system was adopted much later. It's confusing and ultimately pointless, but if you plant apple trees, the year in which you do that is the first year in which you planted apple trees, not the zeroth year. After ten years elapsed, it is now the tenth year of your apple tree planting phase.
I agree about your 80s example (of course I use it in the same way), but that doesn't change the fact that it ultimately doesn't make sense because you'll be off by one when counting backwards. So for colloquial conversations it's fine, for serious date calculations, you cannot just have one "decade" with only 9 years.
I agree about your 80s example (of course I use it in the same way), but that doesn't change the fact that it ultimately doesn't make sense because you'll be off by one when counting backwards. So for colloquial conversations it's fine, for serious date calculations, you cannot just have one "decade" with only 9 years.
I understand the explanation, but your final statement is still wrong. If you're doing "serious date calculations" for any modern organization, and you are asked to make a graph of 20th century data by decade, you will be expected to use the standard decade divisions, i.e. 190_, 191_, 192_. If you include data from December 2000, and get different results from your colleagues, you have failed. The last decade of the 20th century was Jan. 1990 - Dec 1999, according to everybody except the most pedantic of history majors.
And the idea that you could actually do serious date calculations that count backwards all the way to AD 1 while maintaining a precision of 1 year is also ridiculous. There are error bars around the year numbers from that long ago of something like 2-5 years.
I understand the basis for the [1901-2000] definition. However, I really don't think its defense outweighs its huge downsides, especially the split-decade problem.
And the idea that you could actually do serious date calculations that count backwards all the way to AD 1 while maintaining a precision of 1 year is also ridiculous. There are error bars around the year numbers from that long ago of something like 2-5 years.
I understand the basis for the [1901-2000] definition. However, I really don't think its defense outweighs its huge downsides, especially the split-decade problem.
I just wanted to say that I appreciate the amount of thought you have put in your argument, even though I ultimately remain unconvinced by it.
[deleted]
Isn't that what crispyambulance said (or perhaps a few hours before)?
He said both "New Year's Eve, 2000" and "starting on Jan 1st, 2000".
I'm not sure why he contradicted himself, but the first one would be 24h early, and the second one a whole year.
I'm not sure why he contradicted himself, but the first one would be 24h early, and the second one a whole year.
My apologies, I had a brain fart.
I think he's off the mark. The commoditization of computers and proliferation of the internet are way bigger societal and economic shifts and they happened much closer to the year 2000.
The pandemic is more immediately disruptive, but I think it's impact will be largely erased within a few years of it "ending", just like previous pandemics.
The pandemic is more immediately disruptive, but I think it's impact will be largely erased within a few years of it "ending", just like previous pandemics.
Something else could easily eclipse Covid-19 even within the parameters of what matters to Thiel.
Did WWI define the 20th century, or was it WWII? I think WWI demarcates the 1st of a series of really big, interrelated events. I suspect Covid-19 could be the 1st of a series of really big, interrelated events.
Did WWI define the 20th century, or was it WWII? I think WWI demarcates the 1st of a series of really big, interrelated events. I suspect Covid-19 could be the 1st of a series of really big, interrelated events.
That's a fair take. Before this year, most of us might have said 9/11 was the defining moment of the start of this century.
I'm not going to try to predict what history will look like 80 years from now, or whether 9/11 or covid will be considered more significant by then, but this does raise an interesting question of how people in 1913 perceived the nascent 20th century.
Obviously things happened over those 13 years, but whatever they were, history ultimately decided that they were inconsequential enough for the "20th-century events" Wikipedia article to not even mention anything before WWI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th-century_events
I'm not going to try to predict what history will look like 80 years from now, or whether 9/11 or covid will be considered more significant by then, but this does raise an interesting question of how people in 1913 perceived the nascent 20th century.
Obviously things happened over those 13 years, but whatever they were, history ultimately decided that they were inconsequential enough for the "20th-century events" Wikipedia article to not even mention anything before WWI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th-century_events
Historians generally refer to the "long 19th century" as encompassing the time from the French Revolution to WWI (although there is some room to discuss at what exact year you want to place the endpoints). Post-WWI periodization is hard to discuss because it's not necessarily clear until long after what events make more of a difference.
WWII isn't really a single war as much as it is a collection of several wars, be they wars of territorial expansion (e.g., Germany, USSR), ideological civil war (e.g., China), non-ideological civil war (e.g., France), or random local conflicts (e.g., Yugoslav coup) which are all occurring in the context of one another. In many places, it's often a three-way war, with all parties equally at odds with one another, instead of the simple Axis v. Allies it's usually presented as. Start including the full context of these conflicts into the timeframe of WWII, and you push its start date back arguably to 1931, only 8 years after the last cleanup war of WWI (the Russian Civil War).
Viewed from an international relations perspective, combining WWI and WWII into a single period of flux makes sense. WWI makes the death of great power influence, but the attempted resolution afterwards (League of Nations) was impotent and unable to have any major effect on the international crises that arose, unlike the great power conferences preceding WWI. Instead, the end of WWII ushers in the era of superpower relations, where essentially the USA and USSR drive international relations for the rest of the world.
WWII isn't really a single war as much as it is a collection of several wars, be they wars of territorial expansion (e.g., Germany, USSR), ideological civil war (e.g., China), non-ideological civil war (e.g., France), or random local conflicts (e.g., Yugoslav coup) which are all occurring in the context of one another. In many places, it's often a three-way war, with all parties equally at odds with one another, instead of the simple Axis v. Allies it's usually presented as. Start including the full context of these conflicts into the timeframe of WWII, and you push its start date back arguably to 1931, only 8 years after the last cleanup war of WWI (the Russian Civil War).
Viewed from an international relations perspective, combining WWI and WWII into a single period of flux makes sense. WWI makes the death of great power influence, but the attempted resolution afterwards (League of Nations) was impotent and unable to have any major effect on the international crises that arose, unlike the great power conferences preceding WWI. Instead, the end of WWII ushers in the era of superpower relations, where essentially the USA and USSR drive international relations for the rest of the world.
To me it's quite obviously a preview of the ecological collapses that climate change will bring over the rest of the century. This is a small taste of things to come and the scale of the solutions and sacrifices required to adapt to them. The amount of government intervention, which was met with a lot of skepticism in the West, is going to remain a prominent feature.
WWI marks the end of the Concert of Europe system that prevailed over the previous century, and the cost of WWI and its subsequent aftershocks led to the collapse of European global empires and the rise of the American/Soviet century. I'd say that's a pretty good demarcation line.
If there is one thing you can put good money on it's the UNSECO population data. Specifically, the population growth estimates.
The late great Hans Rosling of TED Talk fame had (has?) a fantastic website with a pretty good interface into such data: https://www.gapminder.org/
The key takeaway for me is that by 2099 Africa is going to get ~3B more people and India ~1B more. And they mostly going to be 'middle class' income earners (not poor anymore). Their consumer preferences are being made as we speak (Coke v Pepsi, Chevy v Ford, etc).
The Indian Ocean is going to be as big a trade hub as the Atlantic was and the Pacific is today. The time is ripe to invest in eastern Africa.
The late great Hans Rosling of TED Talk fame had (has?) a fantastic website with a pretty good interface into such data: https://www.gapminder.org/
The key takeaway for me is that by 2099 Africa is going to get ~3B more people and India ~1B more. And they mostly going to be 'middle class' income earners (not poor anymore). Their consumer preferences are being made as we speak (Coke v Pepsi, Chevy v Ford, etc).
The Indian Ocean is going to be as big a trade hub as the Atlantic was and the Pacific is today. The time is ripe to invest in eastern Africa.
I claim that something will definitely eclipse 2020 (including covid, POTUS, and all other shenanigans). This century we will almost certainly get self driving cars, AGI, unprecedented biology advances, VR, etc... Secondary and tertiary effects of those technologies will have far reaching implications on the human civilization.
The only alternative to getting most of those technologies is some kind of global crisis that significantly sets back humanity. So we either have crazy powerful technologies that upend status quo way of life or a catastrophe that destroys everything.
The only alternative to getting most of those technologies is some kind of global crisis that significantly sets back humanity. So we either have crazy powerful technologies that upend status quo way of life or a catastrophe that destroys everything.
This article is a marketing submarine. Can you spot the product?
I doubt anyone is going to talk about covid too much past 2022, based on the efficacy of the vaccine trials.
Thiel is a very smart guy. I have no doubt that if there is an opportunity to frame the world in a way that is the most advantageous and beneficial to him and his beliefs, he would take that opportunity.
Controlling the belief system is more powerful than controlling the resources, which is more powerful than controlling the machinations of a single company, which is more powerful than controlling the product itself.
Once that's understood, I think people are free to make their own judgement calls regarding this opinion of his.
Controlling the belief system is more powerful than controlling the resources, which is more powerful than controlling the machinations of a single company, which is more powerful than controlling the product itself.
Once that's understood, I think people are free to make their own judgement calls regarding this opinion of his.
I don't know why one would think so, 100 years after the spanish flu, it's barely a footnote that, let's be honest, most people that frequent this board hadn't heard of before covid-19. I think one would mark the previous century as either the great depression or wwii. I don't think in 100 years covid will have any lasting effect on the 25-45 year olds of the 2120 crowd (and we'll all be close to death). Besides they will be more worried about the coming war with the Xanthiane'kkas and the Mars colony massacre.
I've called it the end of the post-9/11 era, but that's not quite the same thing.
It won't be that until I'm allowed to keep my shoes on and bring a liter bottle of seltzer water with me when I fly.
I bet they’ll let you bring it if you tell them it’s hand sanitizer.
Which is hilarious as the latter combined with a lighter could be a potent improvised weapon.
Which is hilarious as the latter combined with a lighter could be a potent improvised weapon.
They already let us fly with numerous lithium fire hazards per person. All you need is something like a metal barreled ink pen to pierce the battery pack. Heck, what protection is there from me getting some volume of mercury on board? A pressurized aluminum airframe would not take kindly to spilling any amount of that.
Destroying the aircraft in mid air isn't really the threat any more, though.
The threat is using the airplane and its occupants as unwilling kamikaze weapons as in 9/11, and with the armored doors on the flight deck now it's unlikely the aircrew will allow the aircraft to be hijacked no matter what you bring on board. There's a reason the flight attendants stand in front of the door when the pilots have to use the washroom; it's so that you have to kill or incapacitate them first which buys the pilot(s) time to close and secure the armored door.
The threat is using the airplane and its occupants as unwilling kamikaze weapons as in 9/11, and with the armored doors on the flight deck now it's unlikely the aircrew will allow the aircraft to be hijacked no matter what you bring on board. There's a reason the flight attendants stand in front of the door when the pilots have to use the washroom; it's so that you have to kill or incapacitate them first which buys the pilot(s) time to close and secure the armored door.
Shoes are obstensibly removed to prevent the destruction of planes, not their hijacking. The problem of planes being hijacked was solved around 10am on 2001/9/11, before the government got involved. And if passengers fighting back isn't enough, locked cabin doors should be.
Incidentally, passengers kicked the shit out of the would-be shoe bomber too.
Incidentally, passengers kicked the shit out of the would-be shoe bomber too.
>Shoes are obstensibly removed to prevent the destruction of planes, not their hijacking.
Perhaps that's the stated reason, but I think you and I both know it's security theatre, just like the "no phones in flight" rule.
Perhaps that's the stated reason, but I think you and I both know it's security theatre, just like the "no phones in flight" rule.
Yes of course, hence 'obstensibly'. Maybe that's not quite the right word, but I mean the reason claimed by officials, not the true reason.
[deleted]
I'd say your description is spot-on, at least culturally. It's also the end of the post-08 crash era and the start of the post-20 crash era
It seems a lot of people feared a tech bubble pop throughout the 2010s after the 08 crash, but it never really happened - hence the current "froth"
There are certainly short term tech bubbles but long term I don't think tech is a bubble. This stuff is here to stay and absolutely core to the economy, even more so after COVID mainstreamed telework.
Right now I think the biggest potential bubble is top-tier city real estate where residential is more than 10X median family income. Commercial real estate is probably in a bubble too, at least in those "hot" cities.
Right now I think the biggest potential bubble is top-tier city real estate where residential is more than 10X median family income. Commercial real estate is probably in a bubble too, at least in those "hot" cities.
tech being here to stay is
not contradictory with current bubble prices
The world is going remote, thus finally becoming the global village that the early start-ups envisioned. Why should there be a crash if huge optimization improvements are made? The only things that will tank are the airline industries and the real estate market.
Optimization improvements for whom? Those who already held significant assets and highly-trained white-collar knowledge workers? Yes. Others? Not so much. Wealth inequality was a serious issue before the pandemic and this so-called "K-Shaped Recovery" has dramatically accelerated the trend. We're in for some turbulent times ahead...
“The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed."
“The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed."
Production is limited by energy supply. Once renewable energies have reached the point where carbon hydrates have to be dumped onto the market to make any profit at all, there will be an abundance of energy. At that moment, unless enough AI is built, workers will become the scarce resource.
>and the real estate market.
I'm not sure this will even be the case, depending on your perspective. Yes, we appear to be seeing a correction in commercial class A office space in major metros - but I'd argue that was a long time coming regardless. We may see a correction in residential real estate in those same major metros, but out here in rural America we're seeing an influx of people looking for better value than they were getting in coastal cities and it's driving our markets upward.
I'm not sure this will even be the case, depending on your perspective. Yes, we appear to be seeing a correction in commercial class A office space in major metros - but I'd argue that was a long time coming regardless. We may see a correction in residential real estate in those same major metros, but out here in rural America we're seeing an influx of people looking for better value than they were getting in coastal cities and it's driving our markets upward.
> It's also the end of the post-08 crash era and the start of the post-20 crash era
What crash? SP500 hit an all time high on Friday.
What crash? SP500 hit an all time high on Friday.
A crash in the real economy, if you will. Equity prices may or may not follow. There's a good chance that one year from now, the S&P 500 will be substantially lower than it is today.
[deleted]
>the S&P 500 will be substantially lower than it is today.
I'm curious - are you speaking speculatively here or do you have reasons why you believe that will be the case?
I'm curious - are you speaking speculatively here or do you have reasons why you believe that will be the case?
The stock market isn't the economy
The Fed printed 40 cents for every dollar that existed in March:
https://www.dailyhandle.com/the-government-has-printed-40-ce...
Expect all-time-highs in many things as 40% inflation goes trickles down, now that the velocity of money has stopped crashing:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1V
https://www.dailyhandle.com/the-government-has-printed-40-ce...
Expect all-time-highs in many things as 40% inflation goes trickles down, now that the velocity of money has stopped crashing:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1V
Worth noting that the current long term trend is the velocity of money going down, no reason to expect it to turn back up necessarily.
Definitely is a strong reason stocks are so overvalued though, yeah.
Definitely is a strong reason stocks are so overvalued though, yeah.
> no reason to expect it to turn back up necessarily.
Except that looking at the Fred graphs, now that the worst of Covid seems behind us, it's starting to.
Even if it doesn't go back to 2000 levels, it's certainly going to get to 2019 levels - meaning not just overvalued stocks but inflation too.
It's gonna hurt, but as it will also fix the student loan crisis, it could be overall a good thing!
Except that looking at the Fred graphs, now that the worst of Covid seems behind us, it's starting to.
Even if it doesn't go back to 2000 levels, it's certainly going to get to 2019 levels - meaning not just overvalued stocks but inflation too.
It's gonna hurt, but as it will also fix the student loan crisis, it could be overall a good thing!
Looking at the rates of deaths and infections, the worst of COVID is right now, at least in the USA.
It's good that the vaccines are starting to be distributed but it was only a week ago that my state sent out an emergency text for the first time ever stating that statewide hospital capacity was 90% used up.
It's good that the vaccines are starting to be distributed but it was only a week ago that my state sent out an emergency text for the first time ever stating that statewide hospital capacity was 90% used up.
[deleted]
I'd love for 9/11 era to end. It was so easy to bank before know-your-customer. We not only lost all personal freedom, we lost all of our financial freedom
It just sounds hype, what is true is Covid accelerated a lot of digital platforms maybe as much as 10 years ahead.
This a duplicate of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25319415
I'm more curious what caused the wave of populism in the late 2010s. Was it really Russian propagandists on social media?
COVID will be gone in a year or 2, but the economic damage may cause things to be worse.
My best hope is a reform of the medical cartels, but that is wishful thinking in the face of a billion dollar lobbyist group.
COVID will be gone in a year or 2, but the economic damage may cause things to be worse.
My best hope is a reform of the medical cartels, but that is wishful thinking in the face of a billion dollar lobbyist group.
I'm more curious what caused the wave of populism in the late 2010s.
• History has a cyclical pattern (according to many. Toynbee, Hegel, etc) and the West was just rife for such a period. The people who experienced the negative outcomes of authoritarianism back in the 1940s died or entered nursing homes en masse in the 2010s.
• Social networks, and other internet phenomena, advantage sensationalism and division.
• The actual state of the world is bad enough that people stop voting for the status quo. By the 'state of the world', I mean things like the 'forever wars', terror attacks, the migrant crisis, the 2008 financial crisis, the rise of China, etc.
The more I think about it, though, the less I think the actual state of the world matters. My reasoning there is that the way people interpret both their own station in life, and the events of the world, depends largely on the zeitgeist. With a little effort, I could imagine a world where people interpreted the same political and economic situation in vastly different ways.
I should add a disclaimer that, when it comes to this subject, it's possible I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'm not a real historian :)
It was the great recession.
I remember reading at the time that it is typical for there to be populist right wing movements after economic calamities, same as happened after the great depression.
I remember reading at the time that it is typical for there to be populist right wing movements after economic calamities, same as happened after the great depression.
Is it only right wing? The left elected AOC and gave Bernie a platform.
>Is it only right wing?
That's what it said. I assumed they were talking about how bad economies led to people like Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, and since then maybe Thatcher and Reagan, also Putin, and more recently Brexit, Le May, Orban, the leaders of Poland, Brazil, Philippines, etc. Nobody's propaganda did all that. Bad economies and folks scared about change and their future did.
A very interesting book I read called "The Republican Brain" posited that people are born with a lot of their left/right thinking as part of their personalities, but that when the shit hits the fan a certain amount of left-thinking people will become more conservative.
That's what it said. I assumed they were talking about how bad economies led to people like Franco, Hitler, Mussolini, and since then maybe Thatcher and Reagan, also Putin, and more recently Brexit, Le May, Orban, the leaders of Poland, Brazil, Philippines, etc. Nobody's propaganda did all that. Bad economies and folks scared about change and their future did.
A very interesting book I read called "The Republican Brain" posited that people are born with a lot of their left/right thinking as part of their personalities, but that when the shit hits the fan a certain amount of left-thinking people will become more conservative.
Notably absent are your left wing Maos and lenin.
Either you aren't discussing in good faith or ignorant of left wing populism.
Either you aren't discussing in good faith or ignorant of left wing populism.
I wondered about Stalin, also.
Sorry, I ended up passing along what I remembered reading, and didn't think enough about your comment. Maybe I misremembered, or it would have been more accurate to say populism, without the left/right qualifier?
I agree, that makes sense to me. Populism is not unexpected after a certain amount of economic calamity.
I'm curious if there's a left/right distinction in this context, but I have no idea.
Sorry, I ended up passing along what I remembered reading, and didn't think enough about your comment. Maybe I misremembered, or it would have been more accurate to say populism, without the left/right qualifier?
I agree, that makes sense to me. Populism is not unexpected after a certain amount of economic calamity.
I'm curious if there's a left/right distinction in this context, but I have no idea.
That headline was wonderful, and it surprised me as I have typically been unimpressed by anything he's had to say. Then I read the rest of the article and was disappointed in its scope.
2020 really is a year of phase change (or in Thiel-like terms, a node point through which a number of trends pass through).
If you can correctly predict which issues will not revert to status quo ante (retail, remote work, delivery, retrograde fear of science, class stratification, or something nobody else yet sees) you can have influence, riches, and/or a lot of fun.
2020 really is a year of phase change (or in Thiel-like terms, a node point through which a number of trends pass through).
If you can correctly predict which issues will not revert to status quo ante (retail, remote work, delivery, retrograde fear of science, class stratification, or something nobody else yet sees) you can have influence, riches, and/or a lot of fun.
As a matter of fact the 21st century started prematurely in 1989 with the invention of the world wide web. It was officially inaugurated on NYE 2000, and has since been filled with all sorts of interesting things. 9/11, that started the 21st century's great fear, and security obsession. The 2008 financial crisis, started off the 21st century's fury at the fraudulent capitalist finance system. iPhone / android facilitated the 21st century's incessant protest. Trump and social media showed us some gaping holes in democracy, and the allowed an inherent fascism to reveal itself. COVID revealed to us problems of over population, easy travel and access to healthcare. And then? Clearly it's just the beginning, but there was no point when anything started or ended, other than the date. My only speculation is that the 21st century is as it is because of an appreciation for round numbers, and words like millennium. Or that we are definitely not base reality.
> the 21st century started prematurely in 1989 with the invention of the world wide web
and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
[deleted]
kthxbye123(2)
just another demonstration of how out of touch Thiel is.
He is genuinely a nut in the John McAfee class.
He is genuinely a nut in the John McAfee class.
Of course, I realize he's talking about defining events that delimit major changes between the previous century and its successor. And more specifically, major changes in what Thiel cares about, like financial markets, start-ups, monopolies, and money in general.
But, really, we're only 20% into the century. Something else could easily eclipse Covid-19 even within the parameters of what matters to Thiel. You know, like climate change, the second coming, asteroid hitting the Earth, quantum computing, "the singularity", etc... Who the F knows? There's no utility in this kind of thinking. Just take it for it is and what it becomes since starting on Jan 1st, 2000.