This decision has zilch to do with whether it's good environmental policy or will create jobs. All it has to do with is Trump's desire to feel like Alpha Man of Action when he goes to some rally/playdate in Iowa and can present a reason for everyone to tell him how incredible he is. That is the alpha and omega of policy making in this administration.
Actually it has to do with the Republicans desire to be self-sufficient in all maters science. They want all scientific matters to be determined by their own sphere of influence.
This allows them to deny reality for any matter of science whether it's global climate, abortion, education, gun control, economics and any other issue which requires science to produce evidence in order to select the proper course of action.
It all these cases and more the scientific facts are diametrically opposite to the direction of Republican and conservative legislation.
By making science the stuff of the devil it leaves a gigantic opening for them to stuff their nonsense into the heads of the gullible right wing base.
I agree that the dynamics you describe account for some of the reason Trump's base is primed to latch onto him.
But as far as Trump himself goes, he's not really a Republican. He is solely concerned with receiving praise and feeling tough. There is no master plan; that is really all there is to it.
> But as far as Trump himself goes, he's not really a Republican.
Yes, he is. He may not have a particular devotion to an ideology you'd like to pretend defines the Republican Party, but the US electoral system structurally produces duopoly between parties too broad to have coherent ideology.
Generally speaking Republicans tilt fiscally and socially conservative. I'd be fascinated (no sarcasm) to hear an argument on how party platform and most members are social liberals.
To put another way, if you averaged out the beliefs of all who consider themselves Republicans, Trump himself doesn't believe most of it, certainly not dogmatically.
To put another way, if you averaged out the beliefs of all who consider themselves Republicans, Trump himself doesn't believe most of it, certainly not dogmatically.
I think dragonwriter's point is that this is also true of most (many?) other Republicans.
Long term this may indeed happen but in the short term, it seems unlikely. Like with school vouchers, if I ran a private for-profit school and knew my students suddenly had an extra $X,000 to spend on tuition, my short term move would understandably be to raise tuition at least some percentage of that amount. If the market responds in a couple of years by forcing me to dial it back, so be it, but in the meantime I've made more money without having to provide more services.
In this context "long term" is the time it takes for the market to respond by building more schools or housing or whatever, which generally takes a low single digit number of years (like one). To which the response then becomes, so what?
And that's assuming your argument is true, which in general it isn't. If you raise prices then some of your customers will go elsewhere. That's why sellers don't raise prices already. If you raise prices and your competitors don't, even if your customers have extra money, people can still count and a dollar is still a dollar. The profit-maximizing strategy isn't to raise prices, it's to expand capacity as quickly as possible (which in many cases is immediate) so that you can make your existing profit across more customers who can now afford your product, without losing them to competitors with lower prices.
It feels ambitious to suppose an equilibrium state for schooling to be met within a year. I'd buy two or three.
Is it the case that existing private schools have much excess capacity? Frequently the argument for private schools is smaller class sizes; a rapid influx of new students without new, excellent teachers defeats the purpose. Presumably new classrooms would need to be constructed and so on.
If you receive a $5,000 voucher and your private school jacks up tuition by let's say $1,000, it is unlikely many parents are going to disrupt their routines and children's routines to reclaim that amount, especially since they are feeling relief from a net $4K tuition break. Tuition has effectively decreased, so why rock the boat?
Suppose you're right and a $5000 voucher will cause a $1000 increase in tuition for three years, after which new schools will open and the competition causes tuition to fall again.
So as a parent, for the first three years I'm up net $4000/year and $1000/year is going to build new school capacity to meet increased demand, and thereafter I get the whole $5000/year. Am I supposed to be unhappy about this?
You are basically saying that what happens in the short term is not relevant, but as taxpayers, a lot of people will be upset by profiteering in the manner I described, even if it is only for 1-3 years.
Or from another angle- what will prevent an ever increasing amount of tuition such as happened with the higher education system? "We need to raise the voucher to $10,000 now…"
It's not really profiteering. Expanding capacity costs money. That's where the money is going.
And what you're getting at is one of the reasons that a UBI is better than vouchers.
Suppose you create a $5000 education voucher and there was previously a school with a tuition of $4000. That is now over; they might as well charge $5000. And if there is a higher quality school charging $10,000 and people whine that the voucher doesn't cover it and have the value of the voucher increased, now every school will charge $10,000, because that is the only way to get the whole voucher and there is no reason not to.
But suppose you replace that with $10,000/year in cash like a UBI. Can all schools now raise tuition to the entire amount? Obviously not, because all else equal people will still prefer the $7500/year school so they can spend the remaining $2500 on whatever they want.
UBI still will have some short term profiteering effects. A slum lord who knows his tenants are uniformly $1K/mo richer is going to raise the rent short term. You seem to be assuming everyone is automatically acting in their long term best interest. "Oh neat, I'm going to raise the rent $500 and plow it into new apartments and renovations so five years from now I'm still competitive!" Vs. "I'm going to raise it $500 and buy a BMW!" I just don't see it not happening. I agree that long term it will hash out.
There is always going to be that one guy who responds to any change by going on a bender and smashing his own property. Tomorrow they won't be competitive. That sounds like self-correction.
Don't forget that as CEO, likely it is true that if he had a question about direction or implementation, a hundred engineers would almost immediately respond to him. This 100 hours' investment isn't like you think of some lone hacker poking around SO; he's gluing something together with instant handholding available.
Well, we know this tends to be a problem, so clearly not every combination of adults are capable, and the company as a whole tends to pay a price. Therefore the company has an incentive to try to minimize that cost as much as possible; the question is what kinds of policies (if any) will move us closer to that local maximum.
Almost nobody will agree with the idea that in an ideal world built upon the "marketplace of ideas" that someone should be constrained from expressing political opinions for fear of losing their employment.
In fact this being so is a primary driver of Trump's anti-PC appeal.
Nobody is losing their employment in this discussion. Thiel doesn't even have equity in YC. His part-time partner status is a marketing arrangement, a co-endorsement. All that Sam Altman is being asked to do is to reconsider endorsing Thiel.
Meanwhile, all sorts of misconceptions are behind the appeal of Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a monster. I do not think reasonable people are required to change their behavior to assuage the misconceptions of his deluded followers.
You think this a damning argument. But no reasonable reader thinks we couldn't blow the thread up to 1000 more comments, each choc-a-bloc with vivid details, about the terrible flaws of Donald Trump.
The reason I'm not taking the bait is that the debate on this thread isn't about Donald Trump, and I'm not going to help you muddy the waters.
No, I mean what I've said repeatedly. If you support Donald Trump, or even just think he's no worse than Hillary Clinton, I'll agree to disagree with you and move on. But Sam Altman does not agree with you. Sam Altman compares Donald Trump to a dictator. Paul Graham compared him to Stalin.
The debate is about whether Altman can continue to endorse an important member of Trump's campaign while still believing that Trump is an existential threat to democracy. If Altman is sanguine about a Trump presidency, his support for Thiel is understandable. I don't think that he is.
Fair enough re: employment, but if we shift "employed by" to "do business with" it's still the same discussion.
A theme going on here is a binary state regarding how we should treat individuals and consider their positions. This idea of "endorsing" Thiel means you are supporting all of his political views and not just his business views. That if one supports Trump one is all-in on all of his positions.
For example, many of Trump's supporters are identifying with his economic message. They may find his immigration stance to be distasteful but the overriding concern is the economy, so they are willing to suck it up. Trump's bloc isn't a monolithic group with shared priorities.
Altman's position on this is exactly correct- expressing his disagreement with Thiel but with the maturity to quash the urge to run away from or "punish" Thiel. We would be better off as a society if we all adopted this mindset.
If we shift "employment" to "do business with", we have formulated an argument that boycotts are unethical. So, no, I don't think that gets us anywhere.
Boycotts are designed to force a _business_ to change behavior.
If we extend this into the realm of the individual and political speech, it is a totally different animal with clear dangers for freedom of expression.
I am not myself sure if I would consider it a moral failing to "boycott" an individual as a pressure tactic in these circumstances (or more like misguided social engineering) but it is definitely laudable to take a more nuanced view as Altman and YC have done.
Businesses are made of people. But your argument is even less coherent than that. When people boycotted Nestle, they were supporting a campaign whose intended impact could have put thousands of people out of work, many of whom had no opposition at all to the boycotter's ideas. Boycotting a company is an even more grave act than criticizing some dude with more than one McLaren about endorsing a Trump campaign surrogate who could most likely buy McLaren Automotive. But we tolerate and accept boycotts, as we must, because they are a form of political speech.
It is totally fine to take action against a business; that the business is comprised of people who have no direct input into the actions of the entity and may face consequences of the actions against it should not be an important consideration of where you choose to spend your money.
A counterexample would be a situation where someone went and figured out that most of Nestle's employees were supporting Trump and then boycotted the business as a way to pressure those employees into altering their positions. That is much closer to being morally objectionable.
Outside of that, Altman _has_ criticized Thiel's views, directly. The disagreement seems to be about what to do afterwards. He is simply not willing to cut him off for this disagreement. If this way of thinking was a social norm, you would eliminate "anti-PC" griping which is important to a good chunk of Trump supporters, and you would likely see positive social change happen more rapidly (e.g. if this was the norm 50 years ago you might have seen more movement on gay marriage, etc. if people could pipe up without fear of being fired (or "boycotted")).
We have seen many examples in the last decade of "enemies of the left" being fired and no platformed for their views. This campaign targeting Thiel appears to be a product of the same value system, so it is understandable that some people consider it relevant to the discussion.
I reallyreally hate to wade into this, but can you define either "enemies of the left", "the left" or give explicit examples of what you are describing?
I find it preposterous that it took this long to hear that Trump bus tape as well as the Stern recordings. If you were connected to either of these shows, wouldn't the first thing you did when Trump started to become a story was go looking through the material you had on him? It's simply not credible that they "just found" the bus tape. Was it lost behind a toilet somewhere? That they had this for a while now and were saving it for maximum impact is far more likely than it being only now discovered.
Some of the Stern recordings were getting play during the primaries, but they weren't slowing Trump down since his opposition was split among so many different candidates.
The bus tape was archival footage. If you're suggesting that every hour of archival audio and video of Mr. Trump should have been sought after as soon as he became the nominee, then, again, you're underestimating just how volatile and fickle the news cycle is.
The plausibility of "the official story" (to reiterate: that the footage became an object of interest for NBC after former cast and crew from The Apprentice came forward to disclose his ill manner on the set of that show) seems pretty plain to me. Occam's razor defeats your conspiratorial thinking without breaking a sweat.
Regarding Stern, CNN had as "BREAKING NEWS!@!" that Trump told Stern it was OK to call Ivanka a piece of ass. Possibly CNN was lying about presenting this as something they just discovered; is that what you are claiming?
Yes, I am suggesting that every show would have stuck someone (more likely, a team) on reviewing their material (prioritizing the outtake material, if anything) on Trump as soon as it turned out he was a big deal. I am not clear as to why you think this would not have occurred; why Occam's razor supports that viewpoint. The bus tape would have been a huge story at any time and would not have required building off interest in other stories to investigate (e.g. "Gee whiz, we should look at the archival footage and see what we have! Why didn't we think of this before!")
