1/ Thread: You are not a lottery ticket

Peter Thiel is a contrarian. In 2013, he spoke in SXSW pushing against the conventional wisdom of luck’s outsized role.

2/ I like Thiel’s ideas not because I fully agree with them, but because he consistently pushes against ideas that seem settled.

Peter showed a simple 2x2 framework to make his case.

Are we optimistic/pessimistic about the future?
Is the future determinate or indeterminate?
3/ Optimists think about the promises of the future whereas pessimists deeply fear the future.

If the future is determinate, you should have strong conviction. If it is not, you should heavily diversify.
4/ In the 50s-60s, Americans not only believed they would be at the forefront of progress but also had big, hairy audacious projects in mind that would materialize the definite future they had in mind.
5/ US, generally speaking, still remains optimistic perhaps by just extrapolating the past, but the future vision seems increasingly unclear.

Japan and Europe probably need no explanation at this point.
6/ Thiel identified China in the “determinate pessimistic” quadrant and cited the demographic reality as his rationale, “much of China will get old before they can become rich”

I would push back a little on that.
7/ It is likely that the median Chinese will not have the same quality of life as the median person in the US in the 21st century.

But because of the sheer size of the population, it is not impossible that the # of millionaires in China (4.4M) may exceed the # in the US (11M).
8/ I will share two data points to make a case that the threat from China can potentially be more potent than some in the US like to think.
9/ Back to Thiel’s speech.

Thiel extends his framework to an interesting angle.

He introduced two new variables (investment and savings) into the framework and asked almost a rhetorical question on whether a low savings AND low investment can sustain optimism in the future.
10/ Thiel argued a nation’s psyche can also play an instrumental role in determining which industries dominate in particular era.

You need “definite optimism” to undertake projects such as transcontinental railroad.
11/ In indefinite optimism, as mentioned earlier, you are optimistic but don’t have clear vision of the future.

In such scenario, people would rather invest in index than pick stocks since picking stocks requires some sort of definite version of the future.
12/ “In a definite world, money is a means to an end because there r specific things u want to do with the money. In an indefinite world, u have no idea what to do with the money, so money simply becomes an end in itself which seems a little bit perverse-u just accumulate money”
13/ In an indefinite world, nobody has any idea what to do with the money, as illustrated in the below flow chart.

Since people are out of ideas, Thiel thinks they put up with negative real yields in 10-year UST.
14/ Thiel mentioned it’s not surprising why Buffett’s portfolio consisted of banks/insurance cos in an indefinite optimism world.

Even beyond the world of investing, Thiel fit philosophers in this framework to distinguish these worldviews.
15/ Thiel ends the speech mentioning how the big tech could become this big because of their founders’ definite optimism.

Because of their definite vision, none of them wanted to sell their companies.
16/ A bit of a narrative violation: off the top of my head, I could think all of them wanted to sell their companies in the early stage (except Bezos, I cannot seem to remember reading any such musing).
17/ To be clear, Thiel is not too enamored with the big tech, especially Google.

His “grudge” is not that big tech has done damage to the society, rather they should have done much more with the resources they have.
End/ Link to the full speech: https://t.co/qBy4bItg4j

All my twitter threads: https://t.co/1s3G9QCMGh

More from For later read

Today's Twitter threads (a Twitter thread).

Inside: Planet Money on HP's myriad ripoffs; Strength in numbers; and more!

Archived at: https://t.co/esjoT3u5Gr

#Pluralistic

1/


On Feb 22, I'm delivering a keynote address for the NISO Plus conference, "The day of the comet: what trustbusting means for digital manipulation."

https://t.co/Z84xicXhGg

2/


Planet Money on HP's myriad ripoffs: Ink-stained wretches of the world, unite!

https://t.co/k5ASdVUrC2

3/


Strength in numbers: The crisis in accounting.

https://t.co/DjfAfHWpNN

4/


#15yrsago Bad Samaritan family won’t return found expensive camera https://t.co/Rn9E5R1gtV

#10yrsago What does Libyan revolution mean for https://t.co/Jz28qHVhrV? https://t.co/dN1e4MxU4r

5/
I’ve asked Byers to clarify, but as I read this tweet, it seems that Bret Stephens included an unredacted use of the n-word in his column this week to make a point, and the column got spiked—maybe as a result?


Four times. The column used the n-word (in the context of a quote) four times. https://t.co/14vPhQZktB


For context: In 2019, a Times reporter was reprimanded for several incidents of racial insensitivity on a trip with high school students, including one in which he used the n-word in a discussion of racial slurs.

That incident became public late last month, and late last week, after 150 Times employees complained about how it had been handled, the reporter in question resigned.

In the course of all that, the Times' executive editor said that the paper does not "tolerate racist language regardless of intent.” This was the quote that Bret Stephens was pushing back against in his column. (Which, again, was deep-sixed by the paper.)

You May Also Like

🌿𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒓 : 𝑫𝒉𝒓𝒖𝒗𝒂 & 𝑽𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒏𝒖

Once upon a time there was a Raja named Uttānapāda born of Svayambhuva Manu,1st man on earth.He had 2 beautiful wives - Suniti & Suruchi & two sons were born of them Dhruva & Uttama respectively.
#talesofkrishna https://t.co/E85MTPkF9W


Now Suniti was the daughter of a tribal chief while Suruchi was the daughter of a rich king. Hence Suruchi was always favored the most by Raja while Suniti was ignored. But while Suniti was gentle & kind hearted by nature Suruchi was venomous inside.
#KrishnaLeela


The story is of a time when ideally the eldest son of the king becomes the heir to the throne. Hence the sinhasan of the Raja belonged to Dhruva.This is why Suruchi who was the 2nd wife nourished poison in her heart for Dhruva as she knew her son will never get the throne.


One day when Dhruva was just 5 years old he went on to sit on his father's lap. Suruchi, the jealous queen, got enraged and shoved him away from Raja as she never wanted Raja to shower Dhruva with his fatherly affection.


Dhruva protested questioning his step mother "why can't i sit on my own father's lap?" A furious Suruchi berated him saying "only God can allow him that privilege. Go ask him"