If only they'd quit being so polite, and state the position more firmly. I think I agree with Thiel. the social reality is not being reflected in the host's position. Most jobs are mundane and dull, and everyone is just waiting for the end of the shift...just like school children waiting for the school bell. For good reason too. I know that I am incredibly bored with my work. Incredibly.

Where to start? This is a simplistic exercise in economic-libertarian self-congratulatory back slapping. The interview come across as two economic-Neocons focusing on those elements of libertarianism that speak to an individual's commercial and property rights. They never speak to the full spectrum of individual rights. There is some over simplified implication that any centralizes rules of social engagement are so how anti-libertarian and thus socially and economically destructive. This is not so! Any attempt to build a libertarian framework of civil liberties must concede that one individuals liberties must be limited where they transgress the more basic liberties of another individual. Thus libertarianism is not about getting government out of our way in order to empower a social Darwinian free for all, rather it is about the citizenry having an open, ongoing, collaborative debate about how to construct a social contract that most effectively sets the tipping point between the interests of individual an the interests of the society as a whole.

Here comes the big bad government to oppress us all with their limiting rules.
We are the government! Democratic governance is far from perfect but it is the only mechanism available by which we can collective make this value judgement call about how to construct a social contract that most effectively sets the tipping point between the interests of the individual an the interests of the society as a whole. The only thing a real-libertarian need fear is the simplistic-libertarians who demand that we all scrap the social contract and it's rules of the road so as to empower their practice of unfettered commercial self-interest. These same voices of simplistic economy focused libertarianism are very vocal about exalting the big bad government's regulatory intrusion when it comes to their often quoted "RULE OF LAW" which enforces their individual and corporate property rights! I agree that these commercial property rights are very important but like all rights grated to individuals by society and all rights grated to society by individuals they come with responsibilities.

This interview is old school. It is stuck in the 19th century. The lexicon used by both parties is of a distinctly linear, clock works nature. This linear, clock works, lexicon has no place in a modern discussion of political-economy.

It has long been clear that political-economy is an instance of a complex organic living system. As such, political-economy, exhibits all the characteristic attributes and organizational dynamics endemic to all other complex organic living system.

Political-Economy like all other Organic Living System can be best summarized as a complex web of interdependent, mutually beneficial, sub-processes that strive to find and maintain homeostasis, the tendency toward a relatively stable dynamic equilibrium between interdependent elements. All Organic Living System, including Political-Economy relay on the principles of distributed redundancy, that is to say, that their strategy for fault tolerance and overall survival is a statistical strategy that employs the use of highly redundant instances of all key sub-processes. Further more these redundant copies or instances of all key sub-processes tend to be highly distributed over both space and time as a strategy for both stability and survival.

Political-Economy is an instance of an Organic Living System.
The key sub-processes requiring high levels of distributed redundancy to maintain both it's stability and long term survival are: WELL DISTRIBUTED WEALTH, POWER, EDUCATION & CONTROL

It is incumbent on any serious pundits discussing the key processes involved in modern Political-Economy and the rules by which these key processes of Political-Economy interact to get with the program and learn the lexicon of organic-process-literacy. Without an appropriate language for discussing organic systems it is not possible to construct any meaningfully shareable epistemology around issues of political-economy.

This interview is much like listening to two alchemists talking about how to make plastic. They do not have a language set adequate for describing or identifying the underling atomic processes nor the language required to describe the recurring valence rules by which these atomic processes combine to form complex molecular processes such as plastic. They are applying linear language to an organic process in a hopelessly attempt to have a meaningful discussion.

This polemic, mad hatter's tea party, is everywhere!

If we all have to starve for the next decade to prove that Capitalism as presently formulated is workable, well so be it, that is our duty as citizens in a democracy! Ignore all those malcontents out there that think Capitalism should serves at the pleasure of the citizenry. Those fools think the citizenry has exercised some sort of fundamental democratic right when choosing to support Capitalist institutional mechanisms for industrial production and consumption. Those same fools would probably argue that the citizenry has a right to second guess the formulation of Capitalist Institutional rules, just to accommodate the democratic citizenry's selfish focus on their, oh so self-centered, standard of living. Like that was the prime purpose of the democratic enterprise! These fools need to wake up and smell the oligarchs.

This crisis is fundamentally a failure to evolve basic monetary, credit and accounting mechanisms capable of creating, maintaining and enforcing the organically mandatory equilibrium between PRODUCTION POWER & PURCHASING POWER.
Translation:
The issue is not that concentrations of wealth are amoral but that concentrations of wealth are mathematically unsustainable under the organic-dynamics(network mathematics) endemic to the financing cycles of any flavor of political economy even Capitalism. I smell eau'd Carl Max all over this one. Not that he would have visualized it these terms. Oh! but we are not allowed to admit that any principle attached to Carl's persona might have some validity? Good thing for use he did not discover Newton's laws of motion or we be forever dead in the water :-)

The point being, that when one is slammed to the wall by circumstances and a non-decision is no longer an option, which is the juncture we find ourselves at now! I think? I still democratically choose to align myself with Capitalist methodologies, as they are more amenable to being retrofit onto an organic skeleton. But for God sake, isn't it time for Capitalism to grow up, instead of acting like a spoiled adult kid that won't move out of the house, hangs around eating all the deserts out of the fridge and then refuse to even help take out the f***ing garbage!

------------------------------------------------------

Sublation from the german word Aufheben
A term used by Hegel to explain what happens when a thesis and antithesis interact in a productive mental thrashing so as to generate a new perspective or modeling of a process. This new thesis, on how to visualize the process, is a synthesize of the best elements distilled via constructive arm wrestling between thesis and antithesis. Key terms and concepts is both the thesis and antithesis are both preserved and changed through their dialectical interplay. Key terms and concepts is both the thesis and antithesis are SUBLATED, subjugated and subsumed into the newly evolved thesis. The new thesis generates a new antithesis and the process of thesis-antithesis SUBLATION spirals off into the endless void of historical evolution.

Sublation is far more productive than his evil twin brother Mr. Polemic, who often masquerades as his brother!

Where to start? This is a simplistic exercise in economic-libertarian self-congratulatory back slapping. The interview come across as two economic-Neocons focusing on those elements of libertarianism that speak to an individual's commercial and property rights. They never speak to the full spectrum of individual rights. There is some over simplified implication that any centralizes rules of social engagement are so how anti-libertarian and thus socially and economically destructive. This is not so! Any attempt to build a libertarian framework of civil liberties must concede that one individuals liberties must be limited where they transgress the more basic liberties of another individual. Thus libertarianism is not about getting government out of our way in order to empower a social Darwinian free for all, rather it is about the citizenry having an open, ongoing, collaborative debate about how to construct a social contract that most effectively sets the tipping point between the interests of individual an the interests of the society as a whole.

Here comes the big bad government to oppress us all with their limiting rules.
We are the government! Democratic governance is far from perfect but it is the only mechanism available by which we can collective make this value judgement call about how to construct a social contract that most effectively sets the tipping point between the interests of the individual an the interests of the society as a whole. The only thing a real-libertarian need fear is the simplistic-libertarians who demand that we all scrap the social contract and it's rules of the road so as to empower their practice of unfettered commercial self-interest. These same voices of simplistic economy focused libertarianism are very vocal about exalting the big bad government's regulatory intrusion when it comes to their often quoted "RULE OF LAW" which enforces their individual and corporate property rights! I agree that these commercial property rights are very important but like all rights grated to individuals by society and all rights grated to society by individuals they come with responsibilities.

This interview is old school. It is stuck in the 19th century. The lexicon used by both parties is of a distinctly linear, clock works nature. This linear, clock works, lexicon has no place in a modern discussion of political-economy.

It has long been clear that political-economy is an instance of a complex organic living system. As such, political-economy, exhibits all the characteristic attributes and organizational dynamics endemic to all other complex organic living system.

Political-Economy like all other Organic Living System can be best summarized as a complex web of interdependent, mutually beneficial, sub-processes that strive to find and maintain homeostasis, the tendency toward a relatively stable dynamic equilibrium between interdependent elements. All Organic Living System, including Political-Economy relay on the principles of distributed redundancy, that is to say, that their strategy for fault tolerance and overall survival is a statistical strategy that employs the use of highly redundant instances of all key sub-processes. Further more these redundant copies or instances of all key sub-processes tend to be highly distributed over both space and time as a strategy for both stability and survival.

Political-Economy is an instance of an Organic Living System.
The key sub-processes requiring high levels of distributed redundancy to maintain both it's stability and long term survival are: WELL DISTRIBUTED WEALTH, POWER, EDUCATION & CONTROL

It is incumbent on any serious pundits discussing the key processes involved in modern Political-Economy and the rules by which these key processes of Political-Economy interact to get with the program and learn the lexicon of organic-process-literacy. Without an appropriate language for discussing organic systems it is not possible to construct any meaningfully shareable epistemology around issues of political-economy.

This interview is much like listening to two alchemists talking about how to make plastic. They do not have a language set adequate for describing or identifying the underling atomic processes nor the language required to describe the recurring valence rules by which these atomic processes combine to form complex molecular processes such as plastic. They are applying linear language to an organic process in a hopelessly attempt to have a meaningful discussion.

This polemic, mad hatter's tea party, is everywhere!

If we all have to starve for the next decade to prove that Capitalism as presently formulated is workable, well so be it, that is our duty as citizens in a democracy! Ignore all those malcontents out there that think Capitalism should serves at the pleasure of the citizenry. Those fools think the citizenry has exercised some sort of fundamental democratic right when choosing to support Capitalist institutional mechanisms for industrial production and consumption. Those same fools would probably argue that the citizenry has a right to second guess the formulation of Capitalist Institutional rules, just to accommodate the democratic citizenry's selfish focus on their, oh so self-centered, standard of living. Like that was the prime purpose of the democratic enterprise! These fools need to wake up and smell the oligarchs.

This crisis is fundamentally a failure to evolve basic monetary, credit and accounting mechanisms capable of creating, maintaining and enforcing the organically mandatory equilibrium between PRODUCTION POWER & PURCHASING POWER.
Translation:
The issue is not that concentrations of wealth are amoral but that concentrations of wealth are mathematically unsustainable under the organic-dynamics(network mathematics) endemic to the financing cycles of any flavor of political economy even Capitalism. I smell eau'd Carl Max all over this one. Not that he would have visualized it these terms. Oh! but we are not allowed to admit that any principle attached to Carl's persona might have some validity? Good thing for use he did not discover Newton's laws of motion or we be forever dead in the water :-)

The point being, that when one is slammed to the wall by circumstances and a non-decision is no longer an option, which is the juncture we find ourselves at now! I think? I still democratically choose to align myself with Capitalist methodologies, as they are more amenable to being retrofit onto an organic skeleton. But for God sake, isn't it time for Capitalism to grow up, instead of acting like a spoiled adult kid that won't move out of the house, hangs around eating all the deserts out of the fridge and then refuse to even help take out the f***ing garbage!

------------------------------------------------------

Sublation from the german word Aufheben
A term used by Hegel to explain what happens when a thesis and antithesis interact in a productive mental thrashing so as to generate a new perspective or modeling of a process. This new thesis, on how to visualize the process, is a synthesize of the best elements distilled via constructive arm wrestling between thesis and antithesis. Key terms and concepts is both the thesis and antithesis are both preserved and changed through their dialectical interplay. Key terms and concepts is both the thesis and antithesis are SUBLATED, subjugated and subsumed into the newly evolved thesis. The new thesis generates a new antithesis and the process of thesis-antithesis SUBLATION spirals off into the endless void of historical evolution.

Sublation is far more productive than his evil twin brother Mr. Polemic, who often masquerades as his brother!

It bothers me that he's really defensive about the ridiculous American holiday regime...

- he dismisses the European 5 week holidays as still being nowhere near the 13 weeks, without addressing that it's over two and a half times as much as the US's...

I suspect the fact that if you want to leave America on holiday, you have to use all of your holiday in one fell swoop explains most Americans' ignorance about the world outside their borders.

I also doubt the actual exposure of Peter Thiel to a 50 week working year, and the claims of the superiority of American Colleges (with the exception of Stanford specifically for Business and MIT for Tech Research).