Slashdot Log In
Why Republicans Won't Retake Silicon Valley
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Apr 17, 2009 02:17 PM
from the prepare-for-pudge-rage dept.
from the prepare-for-pudge-rage dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Republican consultant Patrick Ruffini, who counts Google as one of his clients, sketches out a way that the GOP could 'win back' Silicon Valley — but he gets smacked down by tech businessman Francis Cianfrocca. 'Patrick's basic thesis is that the VC firms that fund the Valley will rebel at being regulated by [Treasury Secretary] Tim Geithner, who is talking about increasing reporting requirements for both private equity and venture capital. Assuming I understand them both correctly, something tells me that neither Geithner nor Ruffini understand deeply what venture capital is all about.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Why Republicans Won't Retake Silicon Valley by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
A lot of geeks are libertarian leaning (Score:5, Insightful)
The GOP just needs to embrace that aspect of the party more.
Re:A lot of geeks are libertarian leaning (Score:5, Insightful)
No, a lot of undergraduate white kids who have had mommy and daddy pay for everything and have never had any real life experience are libertarian leaning.
This is because it became fashionable to be "libertarian leaning" for the kids 5-10 years before them it was fashionable to be "socialist leaning".
Parent
Troll? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this a troll? Its kind of a tough position for someone living on either a) Mommy and Daddy's money, b) Subsidized student loans, or c) Scholarships to be truly libertarian. Yet middle class white kids do take that hypocritical position while undergrads fairly often. Seems like a fair thing to point out.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's modded troll because the moderator in question is likely severely mentally retarded, probably with some sort of weird spasms or seizures, and is sat down in front of the computer to gyrate endlessly whilst simultaneously crapping his pants.
That's right retard-moderator, I'm talking to you. I've got karma to burn so blow your points you brain-stem freak.
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? This is what gets modded funny nowadays? Some stupid response to someone bitching about middle class white 18-24 yr olds because they likely were never accepted by peers at the age?
I think I might actually agree with your views on Moderators.
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:5, Informative)
1) The vast majority of ungrad white kids are liberals. Vast, vast majority, PARTICULARLY in colleges where the rich kids go like Harvard.
2) Libertarianism isn't a statement of not receiving any kind of "hand out", gift, or such from another person, it's based on a system of mutual consent between all parties involved. It's not about people "deserving" or "not deserving" a break, it's about voluntary association first and foremost, at least among the "true believer" libertarian. The "South Park libertarian" variety, maybe.
Maybe that's why it was modded troll.
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Libertarians are almost always people who are well off and don't like the idea of helping those who weren't dealt as good a hand as they were.
You can sum up libertarianism as: Fuck everyone else, if you're poor, it's their your fault.
Which is great until you realize that life isn't actually fair and we're not all born equal.
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
You can sum up libertarianism as: Fuck everyone else, if you're poor, it's their your fault.
No, those people are called assholes. The basic principle of libertarianism is that the government should do as little as necessary to keep the society functioning. Of course, there's plenty of disagreement about what should be considered necessary. Personally, being on the socialist side of libertarian, I'm fine with the government collecting taxes to provide infrastructure that benefits society as a whole, as well as helping people in need (which doesn't mean spending money stupidly; training and educating people would be a lot more effective than just sending them a check every month). I'd even be okay with the government helping with health care for people that need it, since a healthy population is far more productive, which benefits everybody. For issues other than economics, I'm pretty far down the libertarian side; the government shouldn't be involved in what people do in private, including who they sleep with and how much marijuana they smoke.
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not libertarian, that's good old-fashioned left-liberal.
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Berkeley isn't the university where the wealthy kids go. It's actually fairly affordable (at the in-state rate), especially considering the education you get there.
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just tell them that:
Having attempted to help the LP in the Pacific Northwest I'm never surprised when such ignorance of one's party history, let alone etymology of Libertarianism continues to abort new still births of ideals.
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a feeling you're twisting "libertarian" to mean "moderate Republican"; that's not what I'm talking about at all. I've seen very few wealthy libertarians. Those that are, are not really the ideological ones.
I'm not denying the "poor people are lazy" libertarians exist. They do; the Ayn Rand sector of libertarianism is particularly noxious. But I often find those that claim they are libertarian simply adopt the label because they are the nuttier kind of Ron Paul supporter, moderate Republicans, or simply thing pot should be legal. I mean, look at Bill Maher, again--he claims to be libertarian, but he sure as hell isn't, and I find a lot of "libertarians" fit that mold. The libertarian party itself, for example, has lost a lot of credibility with many of the more staunch libertarians by nominating Bob Barr, who is probably more the type of libertarian you're thinking of than I am. My libertarian friends STILL crack Bob Barr jokes (just an hour ago one IMed me one).
It's also curious that all the libertarians I know (I'm talking minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, here) do not have big-business aspirations. Whatever the case, no libertarian I know thinks the poor deserve to be poor, or are just lazy, or don't deserve help--many of the libertarians I know are poor, and they tend to lean towards extremity. They just don't believe that government and society are the same thing. Should members of society help the poor? Yes. Should it be done through government or democracy? No.
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Plenty of research shows that high education level and liberal political positions are well correlated. As far as what causative relationships might be responsible for this correlation, we can only speculate.
Out of curiosity, how much time have you actually spent with Harvard undergrads? The ones I knew, particularly the rich-prick types, tended toward libertarianism - they expected to be at the top of the economic pile and liked philosophies that said they deserved it. The scolarship types, who got there by being smart and hard working, understood that they also got there thanks to the help of the society of which they were a part, and tended toward liberalism.
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of conservative professors, they just don't fit into the Jesus and Shotgun ethic that drives the GOP today. When you decide to take an anti-intellectual approach to politics you're going to, surprise, lose the intellectuals.
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
How isn't it a troll against every single white person that lived with their parents? Does the fact that you grew up black with two moms negate my life's experience; just because I grew up white with a dad and mom? What about the just the fact that you aren't white? Does that mean your statement is as racist as it sounds?
In other words: What the fuck gives your life's experience any more credibility than anyone else's; regardless of the ones who's parents were obviously more financially successful than yours?
What's fashionable is parent's narcissism, vanity, and greed being greater than their will to parent. What's also fashionable is being a lazy black person that believes and furthers the belief that white people are evil, and somehow owe you generations of handouts.
I know I will most certainly be modded troll, but I am pretty sure I still need to say that it is black people like you that make black people like my friends call you niggers.
Parent
Re:Troll? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't deny that is true, although often times the factor is socioeconomic status and not actual color of skin. The fact that you're derisive against "white" people despite being white yourself tells me you just want to convince yourself that you're one of the enlightened few to make up for, in your own mind, your own "white privilege."
Parent
There's a Clinical Name for It (Score:5, Funny)
Psycho-Sociologists refer to it as "The Ayn Rand Phase."
Parent
Re:A lot of geeks are libertarian leaning (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm sure all those liberal kids at Berkeley and Harvard and so on are paying THEIR way through college!
It's fashionable to be "libertarian" nowadays in the Bill Maher sense--that is, you think pot should be legal. However, the "true" libertarian types are much fewer and far-between. I've found most of the "true" libertarians to usually be in the poor-to-middle-class range. If libertarianism was popular among the rich we'd see a lot less support for corporate hand outs and subsidies...!
Anyway, libertarian or socialist, it doesn't really say anything about how "greedy" you are. A libertarian may simply believe that society doesn't have a right to dictate what others do no matter how noble it is; a socialist may be a socialist because they want easy work and "free" stuff.
I myself know an anarcho-capitalist that doesn't go to college because he can't fund it himself, and because he adamantly refuses to take federal aid as he would be taking far more than he has paid into the system with.
The fact is, colleges are almost entirely democrat-to-social-democrat-leaning. I suspect your statement was an attempt to deflect the obvious point that most in academia, undergrads on up, are staunchly liberal; whom match your bias.
Parent
Re:A lot of geeks are libertarian leaning (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but the banks are subsidized and guaranteed to make those loans in the first place. That money is "unfairly taxed" from the citizens on this country. You think the bank makes any money on the $22k they loaned me at 2.6% fixed interest for 20 years? I can't very well call myself a Libertarian and accept that kind of aid at the same time, now can I?
Parent
Re:A lot of geeks are libertarian leaning (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, just like you can't be a Republican and not be a god-fearing bible thumper intent on burning gays & liberals at the stake. Or just like you can't be a Democrat and not want America to turn into a completely communist society, where the successful are punished for the sin of productivity.
Libertarianism, just like any other political ideology, has extreme adherents. To assert that anybody who calls themselves a Libertarian must also subscribe to the extreme anarcho-capitalist views you've decided constitute "libertarian philosophy" is thoroughly disingenuous, and just plain incorrect.
Parent
Re:A lot of geeks are libertarian leaning (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is EVER too broke to go to the hospital. They have no choice but to treat you, regardless of you income status.
Sure, they may hound you for cash for a few years and ruin your credit, but you will get the treatment you need.
Parent
Re:A lot of geeks are libertarian leaning (Score:5, Informative)
This is a dangerous myth that way to many people believe. The fact is, it's just not true. All hospitals that accept federal funds of any kind, including medicare and medicaid payments must provide an evaluation and appropriate emergency treatment. If a woman presents in active labor, they either have to treat her, or if they can't safely treat they must arrange for appropriate transportation to another facility. If a patient presents in the emergency room with a condition that will, in the short term, become life threatening, the hospital must treat. Other than those 2 cases, the hospital has no obligation to provide treatment.
Have strep throat. The hospital must evaluate, but are under no obligation to run a strep test or provide antibiotics to treat the problem unless it has progressed to sepsis.
Present with a blood glucose level of 250. Might not even be diagnosed, depending on the acute symptoms. No obligation to treat, no required follow-up for diabetes education, no requirement to provide a blood glucose monitor or test strips, no requirement to provide medications that control the condition.
Present with asthma. Most of the time, this gets you to the front of the line right up there with the cardiac patient. They have to get you stable, might even have to admit you for a day or two to get the symptoms under control, but the hospital has no obligation to treat after the crisis has passed.
Show up with an obvious 1 cm melanomia on the back of your hand. Don't expect a dermatologist to come down, remove the cancer and do a biopsy and provide on going treatment. At best you'll get a refereal from the ER doc and an admonition to see a specialist as soon as possible.
Bottom line, unless the patient is in active labor, or the condition is such that there is a significant possibility that the patient might die in the short term, there is no legal obligation for the hospital to provide any treatment whatsoever.
I am sure that there are clinics and hospitals out there that provide on-going treatment for chronic conditions and will work out a payment plan for you. But no one should believe that there is a legal requirement for any health care organization to provide routine care if you have no means to pay for it.
Parent
Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about liberal kids who've never had to work a day in their lives at a serious job and seen entire double digit percentages of the money they need to live on getting taken away to pay for the government programs they support. It's easy to be a socialist when you aren't one of the productive members of society pay
Re:Ironic (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Ironic (Score:5, Informative)
For 2006, top 5% = $153K+. That's good money, but people probably still work pretty hard in that range.
Top 1% = $388K+. Still not necessarily idle rich.
If you get 1 million plus a year in interest, dividends, capital gains, and tax payer bailouts then yes you are probably free of any calluses or stress.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Political leaning is a stupid way of identifying yourself, thus I doubt VCs will care about the slant.
I think the silicon valley probably doesn't like seeing its jobs shipped overseas. VCs don't benefit much from offshoring, but the rest of Si Valley only gets murdered by it. VCs won't like being regulated, but they aren't profiting by so much of the tech industry being in jobs they're petrified of leaving either. They can't get people to take risks in small start ups in the present market.
I don't think eit
I haven't found that (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience, geeks are generally in favor of civil liberties, but also in favor of significant government provision of public services, such as high-speed rail, NASA, and funding for the National Science Foundation. Many also support significant regulation of markets, such as more vigorous enforcement of antitrust law, and institution of net-neutrality rules.
Parent
Re:I haven't found that (Score:5, Interesting)
In my experience, geeks are generally in favor of civil liberties, but also in favor of significant government provision of public services, such as high-speed rail, NASA, and funding for the National Science Foundation. Many also support significant regulation of markets, such as more vigorous enforcement of antitrust law, and institution of net-neutrality rules.
I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Seriously, that's me exactly. It doesn't fit the usual labels, so I call it "game theory politics." Namely, preserve people's rights to the utmost practical limit, and have government only involve itself in programs that would otherwise fail due to game theory considerations. Example: building roads is really bad if left to the individual to do ad-hoc. Building a space program requires such massive collaboration that it will never happen if left to individuals. People generally want clear air - but aren't willing to unilaterally buy a cleaner car if others won't. We all know that taxes are necessary to some extent, but try like hell to minimize our own burdens.
To me, all those examples are where the majority of the individuals want a given outcome, but nobody wants to take the first step. Government is good at fixing that. Problems that a person can, could, or should solve on their own, no thanks. In particular, I really hate "the government is your daddy" taxes, and would opt out of Social Security in a second if I could.
Parent
Re:I haven't found that (Score:4, Interesting)
Many also support significant regulation of markets, such as more vigorous enforcement of antitrust law, and institution of net-neutrality rules.
That's a very specific type of regulation that is designed to encourage capitalism and competition rather than to limit it.
Parent
I wont RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
but let's summarize the summary. A political guy says people will come to his side because they wont like what a politician from the other side will do. A business guy says both political guys are clueless. What makes this a Republican issue? Sounds like a politicians are stupid issue. (And I already knew that.)
It's not even something someone will do (Score:3, Insightful)
It's what he thinks someone might possibly someday do (this all seems to be premised on something Geithner said as a brief aside). Must be a slow news day.
Re: (Score:3)
But this isn't really all that critical of republicans but more so of fake liberal democrats.
The last few paragraphs of the article talk about how many of the new "green-tech" venture moneys depend on the government regulation and forcing people to use them. So these businessmen are calling themselves liberal democrats and supporting there ideals in order to cash in on it. Not much diffrent than changing a research project's name from "studding ____" to "studding ____s effect on global climate change" in
Politics. (Score:4, Insightful)
You know I have politics blocked from my slashdot front page for a reason.
Any thing with GOP in the title is without a doubt politics.
What's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Venture Capital (Score:3, Funny)
...something tells me that neither Geithner nor Ruffini understand deeply what venture capital is all about.
Ponzi schemes... Duh!
I'd think taxes would be a better avenue. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'd think taxes would be a better avenue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming the "rich" software engineers you're referring to made less than $250K last year, they actually got a tax cut from Obama. Stop drinking the GOP Kool-Aid for a minute and think about where your interests really lie. A 3% tax hike (actually, expiration of a previous tax cut) on the top 5% of taxpayers is not a march towards socialism, it's a sound fiscal move.
Parent
Re:I'd think taxes would be a better avenue. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see any basis to expect low-six figure worker to bear more tax burden. Obama has been insistent that those making less than 250K will pay less taxes.
The idea that the national debt must hit the middle-class "sooner-or-later" isn't based on anything, either. With the top 2% of the population posessing 50% of all the wealth, it would be entirely practical to require them to fully bear the debt... Not to mention morally appropriate, since we are talking about all the same people who caused this mess in the first place, and are getting trillions of those dollars in government aid. So why shouldn't they (eventually) have to pay it back, plus interest, and then some to zero things out, and put us in a better position the next time government intervention is needed due to corporate greed?
Parent
Re:I'd think taxes would be a better avenue. (Score:5, Insightful)
"top 2% of the population posessing 50% of all the wealth"
Wealth is not equal to income. Ask any farmer or fisherman, who can easily have a million dollars tied up in land or a boat, and not enough money to buy the fuel to get the next increment of income.
Yes I am the son of a farmer. And yes, I do something else that pays better.
Parent
I think it's a geography issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not convinced that the overall political leaning of Silicon Valley has anything to do with the respective benefits of the parties on the industry. Rather, it just so happens that the industry is made up, largely, of people who live in a pretty liberal area. Silicon Valley leaned Republican back when California, itself, leaned Republican, and hasn't leaned that way since. I live in an southeast red state, and by straw poll, the people involved in the tech industry here have politics that pretty heavily reflect the general population.
Silicon Valley isn't up for grabs because San Francisco isn't up for grabs.
When will you all realize.. (Score:5, Insightful)
that the "us vs them" bullshit is ruining america in every measurable sense?
There's full blown media war between fox (right) and msnbc (left), and the victims are anybody with the ability to absorb two opinions, then form their own.
If you are registered voter for either party, you are a follower, a simpleton, and are part of the problem.
Vote for the MAN, not the PARTY.
Re:When will you all realize.. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Vote for the MAN, not the PARTY."
I don't get this. Don't you vote for an ideal? For things you want to happen? To inject your philosophy into the legislating bodies?
Or do you want to vote for an baby-kissing slimeball?
If you voted for a MAN, you are part of the problem. Vote for the PARTY that represents you.
Parent
without the bold leadership (Score:3, Funny)
of ted stevens, unfortunately the complexity of the tubes seem unnavigable at this time.
No mention of Sarbanes-Oxley? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hard to take seriously an article that makes no mention of Sarbanes-Oxley, which effectively closed the IPO market for venture funded start-ups.
Whichever party cracks that door back open has a shot at winning big supporters from Silicon Valley.
Apolitical? Research donations online, it's easy enough to do. Venture capitalist contributions are large, and in the last election cycle went about 2 to 1 in favor of Democrats.
Could that go to 1 to 1, or even 1 to 2, in favor of Republicans? Certainly, it's up for grabs. Every day employment falls in Silicon Valley, even more so.
Re:No mention of Sarbanes-Oxley? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we were to see an actual return towards fiscal conservatism and keeping government out of peoples' private business, we might have something to discuss. So long as the GOP chooses to base itself on gay bashing, anti-scientific rhetoric and hating on immigrants (legal and otherwise), they'll never see gains here.
Oh, and having Carly Fiorina on their side doesn't exactly improve their image, either.
Parent
VCs don't pose any systemic risk (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no plausible reason I've heard or can think of to regulate VCs more closely. They don't pose any systemic risk in the way that lending, derivatives, or insurance can. They're one manifestation of the big virtue in a sea of mixed issues with capitalism: entrepreneurship. If you lose, you lose your money, the business ceases to exist. If you win, you make money (potentially lots of money) creating and selling a viable business. That's it. No bailouts. Investors lose, people may lose jobs, but there's nothing else for anybody to do. All the arguments for regulation that make a certain amount of sense in other sectors tend don't seem to apply well here.
Heck, even if VCs for some reason COULD pose systemic risk, it's a small enough part of the economy (yearly less than what we're probably going to end up loaning to the auto industry) that it probably still wouldn't.
Typical politics (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to think the GOP were all about the rich, conservative middle / upper classes who seek to be allowed to profit from everything without any limitations, and let the poor carry the tax burden. I used to believe the Democrats were a slightly more socialist version of the GOP. I used to think Obamma would be willing to change a few things in the balance of corporation / government / people, but the more I see his decisions, the more I was right to think that the system IS broken and needs to be changed in favor of the tax paying US people.
Politicians deal in speeches. Speeches talk AT the people, not WITH them. Speeches are pre-planned rhetoric carefully worded to mean many things to many audiences as well as written FOR a specific audience. Speeches are rehearsed and performed; not unlike actors on stage in a play. Actors play roles which are not them, doing stuff they wouldn't do, saying stuff they wouldn't say. It's performance lying....and politicians wonder why they are never believed.
Why pick sides (Score:5, Insightful)
If you strongly identify with the Democrats decrying Republicans or the Republicans decrying the Democrats, could you please just re-examine why you're allowing either of the two dominant political parties control you like a mindless sheep. These guys are pretty much all liars and using you. Until Americans think for themselves and hold office holders of all parties responsible for their actions, all the rest of this is cheering at a football game and useless for solving real problems.
Venture Capital isn't doing its job (Score:4, Interesting)
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/haque/2009/04/asleep_at_the_wheel_of_creativ_2.html [harvardbusiness.org]
It *is* harvard business school, so perhaps a grain of salt is required.
Although others may not agree with me, there is an important point in both the Democrat article linked by the summary and in the link above: Venture Capital is not a systemic risk to the financial system. Why? The articles disagree on that point, but I tend to think they are not doing what they are supposed to, and the reason why they aren't might be worthy of a moment of cogitation (or whatever).
Haque makes the argument that one major reason the downturn has been so bad is that VCs have not done what they are supposed to for the last 15-odd years: Invest in risky technology and bring in the new companies/ideas as the old ones crumble, not try to be completely safe and make a a gazillion dollars! The new technologies, processes, and ideas that are supposed to sweep in and replace the old broken ones (is there anyone to replace GM, Ford, and Chrysler, for instance?) are not here, they're 5-10 years out, such as Tesla Motors. Venture capital is supposed to be the creative force behind our economy (please argue with me here), while the market determines the worth of the product created and ultimately leads to the destruction of companies that do not pass muster.
The reason we had this bubble is because there was no real blockbusters worth investing in. Something had to be mocked up to look like a good investment, not only Real Estate, but things like social networking sites. There was even a recent Slashdot article, I believe, on Facebook's issues. Why are we pouring money into things like this (I'll cover my opinion on that in a moment)?
Haque's argument also states that America was the only really booming economy in the world for the last 100 years because it was the only real venture capital country. I'm not sure I completely agree (it's obviously more complicated than that) but I wonder if the point isn't partly true. By deciding to not take big risks in technology and science, by not funding the education necessary for people to actually take those risks, and by creating a culture where style matters over substance, perhaps the state of Venture Capital firms (and even silicon valley) is a reflection of the mindset that has led to the current economy.
In that regard, I'm not sure any political party should really want to control them. How innovative are they really going to be without visionaries willing to take big risks for their visions?
Yes, I know there are visionary benefactors out there, but if there's a discussion to be had surrounding VCs should we tie it back into innovation since this is Slashdot?
Are there any people here involved marginally with VC (I know I have been recently and have a story for another post) that can give us some perspective?