Cardinal Conversations: Reid Hoffman and Peter Thiel on "Technology and Politics"

38 Comments

  1. Jonas Kgomo said:

    I always find it mindblowing that LinkedIn , Youtube, Tesla, PayPal …etc were once in the same room. Like to think of it , what are the odds?

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  2. Luke Terry said:

    Reid Hoffman's political views look so much more elitist and smug since it was shown there was no Russian collusion.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  3. morthim said:

    "it is not about hate speech" it absolutely is.
    "it isn't about hateful sentiments" is that what you think hatespeech is?
    hatespeech is just a new word for heresy. it identifies and characterizes a word or expression not at a semantic level but at a sociopolitical level- specifically that the idea isn't consonant with one party.
    no hatespeech is hateful. hate is just a rationalization some use to frame dissonant views in order to discredit them without having to entertain the possibility of merit in the idea or the potential situation that one's goals may not be perfect.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  4. Christopher Knox said:

    Quit blaming Russia and get a better candidate Liberals which represents more voters than the lefts anarchist. Russia did not make people not vote Democrat. Crypto Currency is fake wealth for a few people who have done nothing to earn what they have.
    Go figure these guys would be for it.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  5. data black said:

    both Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman SUPPORT BITCOIN

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  6. logical fruit said:

    The idea that silicon Bally does nit concern itself with politics I think in 2018 has been blown out of the water in large party by the leaked footage of the collective day of mourning at google the day after Trump was elected.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  7. Reality Check said:

    After carefully listening to this, you will discover that Thiel , Hoffman and Reid are actually ENEMIES of American democracy. They are like their co-religionist Soros who use their billions to creare propaganda, mobilize mobs, and to pervert the news (aka “fake news”). This is the “leverage effects” that Hoffman refers to in this talk (listen carefully to the context if you didn’t catch it). They want to define our future according to THEIR values at the expense of the constitution. They give lip service to responsibility, but they actually wish to destroy the constitution and replace it with their “progressivism”. They are only interested in THEIR money, power and influence. And they are in bed with the political elite here in California which is becoming as a society WORSE, and it will continue to WORSEN. Did you catch Peter demonize Trump and his supporters? “Hurry up and die!” It’s pathetic and shameful how they would resort to hate (and possibly violence like anti-Fa) to destroy people whom they identify as their enemies. Like typical Leftists, their world and their god is constant class warfare. Thiel only supported Trump because it was in his narrow self interest as a businessman. The largest corporations donate to BOTH parties so that both will do their bidding and not pass legislation that could adversely harm their business. Thiel and the other two are actually pseudo-intellectuals as evidenced in this conversation. They have the gall to appoint themselves as the new Washington, Madison, and Jefferson of this age of high tech. As further proof of this, read what even Thiel has said. He actually contends that human freedom and representative democracy are incompatible!
    (http://gawker.com/what-does-peter-thiel-want-1784039918)

    Americans will live free only as long as they recognize who is the one who gives true freedom (John 8:36). OTHERWISE, the U.S. will undoubtedly go into the trash bin of all the other great civilizations that came before it. Mark these words!

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  8. lchpdmq said:

    Gamer gate- ooh how horrible. These leftists are just creepy how they signal adherence to their bizarre religion

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  9. Jason Sabourin said:

    "Would you be friends if you met today"

    I bet I could answer that. Peter would be up for it but Reid wouldn't. How can I guess that ? My own experience in our current polarized society.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  10. Jason Sabourin said:

    Reid represents the smugness that lost the election for the left. Peter is much more realistic and understanding of what the people of this nation are saying and feeling.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  11. Midnight Rambler said:

    endless intro's!

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  12. cr7ckd0wn said:

    What a stupid question it is to ask why China is "ahead" in mobile payment. Just arrest all US bank executives and create a single bank owned and run by the federal government, and you'll get what you ask for.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  13. Mark Barrett said:

    This moderator takes every opportunity to hear himself talk at length. Bud, its not about you.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  14. Kublaixxx said:

    Peter Thiel is one of the few people that understands the real danger of having somebody decide for society what is allowed or proper and what is not. That road is a very very scary one if you choose it.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  15. shadfurman said:

    News is about reporting what is true. It's not Fox vs CNN, the majority of large news companies are intentionally (not on accident or through neglect) publishing many grossly misrepresented and sometimes outright maliciously false articles, even in the non-opinion sections, though usually under the guise of "opinion", and generally with an attempt to obfuscate its designation as opinion.

    This isn't an ideological or political conspiracy. It is merely the incentives of corporations flailing to make profits in an archaic structure. Targeting the biases of their customers by writing articles their customers want to read, instead of accurately reporting events as unbiased as can be expected, reaps the "news" publishers higher profits from their niche of customers. If they reported the news accurately, many of their customers in our polarized society would take offense, considering the facts contradicting their firm opinions were innacurate and seek their news from other publications. With the dwindling margins of the old skool main stream media, they seek greener pastures by copying the online clickbait regurgitations instead of seeking to hold their ethics and innovate.

    This opens the door to a niche of factual news reporting, that hasn't yet reaped enough customers seeking the news, to fund full and broad journalistic coverage. It is happening, but only slowly.

    Insisting the dominate media coverage is "legitamite" when they can be quickly and EASILY fact checked, usually from the very original sources tbe news uses, and facts from original sources regularly seen to have been manipulated so grotesquely it is quite reasonable to assume malicious intent, seems to be insanely intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant, of any one who understands basic economics and pays attention to the changing socio-political environments of our time. Artificially propping up these old decaying institutions as legitamite only deprives the real news innovators of potential customers, by giving those customers an authoritative vote that the old media institutions are in fact still adhering to reasonable journalistic ethics and reporting the facts as they are found, which is verifiably, objectively, NOT the case, with a some regular fact checking. At some point, an honest person, must discontinue poo-pooing the claims and check themselves. The preponderance of data showing the loss of journalistic ethics is immense.

    These large "news" corporations, are little more trustworth than tabloid rags. If they report facts, it's quite likely by accident.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  16. Samuel Hauptmann van Dam said:

    Hoover institute have some of the best debates.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  17. Andre Costin said:

    Reid Hoffman is such a detestable authoritarian.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  18. Imani Malaika-Mehta said:

    A city in China turns out 1K engineers a month? Why aren't doing this? We don't have a well-educated populace, which is why fake news ON BOTH SIDES flourishes. The left wing operates in an echo chamber just like the right wing does.

    Most people don't know enough about science, economics and history to have an intelligent conversation. Uninformed opinions, not objective facts, leads to selective and faulty reasoning. Identity politics and the anti-intellectual, overly-entertained electorate is is not the way to go forward.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  19. Mr Shah said:

    It's scary how smart Peter Theil is.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  20. Deepak Sharma said:

    Make America great again is very offensive to Silicon valley..What a point!

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  21. Ludwigvan said:

    Totally unjustified to call CNN and other major news networks fake news.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  22. nsa said:

    Is there a law that forbids hate speech? The corporate actors should focus on legality, rather than nebulous censorship concepts.

    Internet shops and internet payment reminds me of short-term stock traders… you make disproportionate money to the value you create. It is good that Thiel recognizes that computer programs do not make an economy. Look at the US chemical or pharma or metals industries … stagnation and Stanford MBA-type imposed extermination.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  23. Sebastian Aguiar said:

    Both studied philosophy. This is indicative in their precise use of language yet boring cadence.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  24. Richard Parker said:

    Now THIS is a panel 🙂 Good work (like always), Hoover Institution!

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  25. Youtube said:

    "I prefer a cure for cancer" OHHHHHH!!! Peter killed it there at the end.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  26. Kytsche said:

    On the productivity problem, both billionaires have good arguments.  Thiel is correct that the productivity level in Western nations has increased quite slowly for the last 45 years, compared to the preceding 70 years.  Since inequality has increased during that period, the rich have taken all the productivity gains and the average household has seen stagnant income (roughly speaking).  Hoffman points out the digitization of the economy and the range of small innovations that continue to appear.                                                                       I was reading lately about the developments of science and technology in Europe in the 5 centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution.  Productivity growth in those centuries was close to zero (less than 5% per century).  Yet, there was much innovation in all sorts of domains, some well known, most obscure.  The rate of innovation was increasing, as well.  Yet, this did not impinge noticeably upon the general stagnation of productivity for the simple reason that none of these early inventions were enough to change any major economic sector.  Agriculture, mining, manufacture, food processing and storage, transportation–all of these stood still, even as major advances occurred in clocks, telescopes, safe childbirth, sailboats, iron nail and glass production, and on and on.–Not to speak of the intellectual advances in these years, especially the scientific method. The point is it's very possible to have useful innovations without significant measured productivity growth.  This is part of the explanation for our current economic condition, but no one bothers to mention it.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  27. Tasos Obscure said:

    Claiming that inequality is advanced is hilarious, everyone has cheap clothing, food, electronics, water, housing(not the best but usually not bad), education, internet(the big one). Wealth unimaginable to everyone 100 years ago is now available to all.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  28. Skandalos said:

    Really boring and uninteresting talk. The moderator goes to some length to block every interesting tangent Peter Thiel forks off. And there is hardly any debate. Yet these two guys could hardly be more opposite.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  29. Alan Ho said:

    I don't got it. Did Reid Hoffman make a personal attack at Peter on 53:00?

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  30. Arcamemnon said:

    Far too short for deep conversations like this. Things were just getting started, the end felt rushed and unnatural. I'd say shoot for 2 hours minimum.

    Very disappointed in Mr. Thiel on the topic of free speech when hate speech briefly came up. His breathless virtue signalling about not defending hate speech as if it is a crime shows how spineless people in leadership roles have become. You don't have to agree with the hate speech to stand in defense of free speech.

    After all it's the worst most uncomfortable speech that needs protection, not comfortable speech everyone can accept. If you outlaw hate speech you break the protections freedom of speech grants all of us and it'll then only be a matter of time before government decides speech against a political party or against a policy, or against some other issue important to those in power is hate speech.

    Defend all speech, even hate speech, by staunchly standing up for and insisting on freedom of all speech any time the topic comes up. Having to listen to the occasional obnoxious hate-monger is a small price to pay to remain free. Allow the public square to ridicule them no need to make any laws against any kind of speech. Remain spineless and virtue signal every time it comes up and it won't be long before laws begin to change.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  31. stationcharlie said:

    collective truth ? what if "collective truth" is actually a collective lie ?

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  32. HNTR KLLR said:

    the larger a government is, the smaller it's economy will be

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  33. Storm&Cloud said:

    Peter Thiel 2020

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  34. Isuzu Buyer said:

    Skip to 12:25 to get to what you came for.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  35. Ben Berzai said:

    The shame of the left, and Reid here, is an historical and megalomaniacal fallacy that we are at history's end and just need to place the right geniuses in charge to order society.

    That is the unwritten mistake of history. Or, better said, erased by next generation of "geniuses" who want to try again.

    I side with Thiel, and Hayek, and humility. These geniuses do not exist.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  36. Morphing Reality said:

    Great choice for moderator.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  37. Tim W H said:

    Why not just say "diversity of ideas" ? What's with all this race and sexuality stuff? Do black people and gay ppl think differently because they're black or gay? Is being gay or black a different kind of human experience that requires us to take it into consideration when we have an interlectual discussion?

    And if it is, shouldn't we start investigating the uniqu way these people experience reality? maybe they have super powers.

    May 27, 2019
    Reply
  38. Cole Freeman said:

    first

    May 27, 2019
    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *