Fwd: One of Beverly's important themes on Thursday : Gilded Rage: Talking With Jacob Silverman
Mark Kohut
mark.kohut at gmail.com
Sat Nov 1 14:14:09 UTC 2025
>
>
> to Repeat myself in a new way. This guy's book and knowledge of tech bros
> (below) was presciently seen by Thomas Pynchon in that
>
> still-rising in esteem I say, and still neglected novel BLEEDING
EDGE...one of P's deepest seeings is authoritarianism, of course, from GR
thru Shadow Ticket. IMO. I read Bleeding
Edge twice immediatley, liked it but and coulld not see its depth until
years--a decade at least--later. IMO.
> Why Silicon Valley went from libertarian to authoritarian
>
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
> Forwarded this email? Subscribe here
> <https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9wYXVsa3J1Z21hbi5zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vc3Vic2NyaWJlP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPWVtYWlsLXN1YnNjcmliZSZyPWR5YTJ4Jm5leHQ9aHR0cHMlM0ElMkYlMkZwYXVsa3J1Z21hbi5zdWJzdGFjay5jb20lMkZwJTJGZ2lsZGVkLXJhZ2UtdGFsa2luZy13aXRoLWphY29iLXNpbHZlcm1hbiIsInAiOjE3NzcwMjI0OCwicyI6Mjc3NTE3LCJmIjp0cnVlLCJ1IjoyMzQzNDM3NywiaWF0IjoxNzYxOTkzMzM0LCJleHAiOjIwNzc1NjkzMzQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0wIiwic3ViIjoibGluay1yZWRpcmVjdCJ9.orwr_dz74w-WwPaicP3OA8SFOrtb6DADXaMkbCoQUc8?>
> for more
> Gilded Rage: Talking With Jacob Silverman
> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=277517&post_id=177702248&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=dya2x&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMzQzNDM3NywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTc3NzAyMjQ4LCJpYXQiOjE3NjE5OTMzMzQsImV4cCI6MTc2NDU4NTMzNCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTI3NzUxNyIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.n9aJUlh8hDoyl7w_-nOAJ4_8quTNNtmeGJUpGngDlZY>Why
> Silicon Valley went from libertarian to authoritarian
>
> Paul Krugman <https://substack.com/@paulkrugman>
> Nov 1
> <https://substack.com/@paulkrugman>
>
>
> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=277517&post_id=177702248&utm_source=substack&isFreemail=true&submitLike=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMzQzNDM3NywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTc3NzAyMjQ4LCJyZWFjdGlvbiI6IuKdpCIsImlhdCI6MTc2MTk5MzMzNCwiZXhwIjoxNzY0NTg1MzM0LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjc3NTE3Iiwic3ViIjoicmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.LJA6ZLATxg8Zx4_p0OzvK534JZ8FowGKc_rpTFBVG7Y&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-reaction&r=dya2x>
>
> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=277517&post_id=177702248&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&isFreemail=true&comments=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMzQzNDM3NywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTc3NzAyMjQ4LCJpYXQiOjE3NjE5OTMzMzQsImV4cCI6MTc2NDU4NTMzNCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTI3NzUxNyIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.n9aJUlh8hDoyl7w_-nOAJ4_8quTNNtmeGJUpGngDlZY&r=dya2x&utm_campaign=email-half-magic-comments&action=post-comment&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email>
>
> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=277517&post_id=177702248&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&action=share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=dya2x&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMzQzNDM3NywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTc3NzAyMjQ4LCJpYXQiOjE3NjE5OTMzMzQsImV4cCI6MTc2NDU4NTMzNCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTI3NzUxNyIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.n9aJUlh8hDoyl7w_-nOAJ4_8quTNNtmeGJUpGngDlZY>
>
> <https://substack.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.p2KFYhF_ZqUk_SE0BqoOsoaCNl14ApMx4TSjBI_BGeo?&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email>
>
> READ IN APP
> <https://open.substack.com/pub/paulkrugman/p/gilded-rage-talking-with-jacob-silverman?utm_source=email&redirect=app-store&utm_campaign=email-read-in-app>
>
>
> <https://substack.com/redirect/e85c54ba-8f4c-47ab-a105-34251a983d7f?j=eyJ1IjoiZHlhMngifQ.dLFHbWLw7uG3q0rBuTDTXWLZSmJwQKda3Lozk6Q2Z3I>
>
> One of the surprising, at least to me, aspects of the Trump regime has
> been the large role played by Silicon Valley billionaires, who we used to
> think of as fairly liberal or at least libertarian. So I spoke with Jacob
> Silverman, whose new book Gilded Rage
> <https://substack.com/redirect/8aea44b6-52a7-4353-9c72-50cc191dd704?j=eyJ1IjoiZHlhMngifQ.dLFHbWLw7uG3q0rBuTDTXWLZSmJwQKda3Lozk6Q2Z3I>
> talks about how that happened. Transcript follows:
>
> <https://substack.com/redirect/978b88e1-87e1-4538-b3d9-7f6426a5c5c3?j=eyJ1IjoiZHlhMngifQ.dLFHbWLw7uG3q0rBuTDTXWLZSmJwQKda3Lozk6Q2Z3I>
>
> *. . .*
>
>
> *TRANSCRIPT: Paul Krugman in Conversation with Jacob Silverman*
>
> *(recorded 10/27/25)*
>
> *Paul Krugman: *Hi everyone, Paul Krugman again. This week I’m talking
> with Jacob Silverman who has a new book called *Gilded Rage
> <https://substack.com/redirect/6286a750-f99d-4c48-92b1-c2fa29767e47?j=eyJ1IjoiZHlhMngifQ.dLFHbWLw7uG3q0rBuTDTXWLZSmJwQKda3Lozk6Q2Z3I>*,
> which is about one of the, unfortunately, really important aspects of our
> political life, which is the hard right turn of a lot of the biggest guys
> in Silicon Valley. I wish we didn’t have to care about these guys’
> motivations, but we do. Hi, Jacob.
>
> *Jacob Silverman: *Thanks for having me.
>
> *Krugman: *Lots of areas to talk about here, but maybe as a starting
> point: some people say that Silicon Valley turned right because the Biden
> administration started trying to regulate them and impose antitrust on
> them, that was the turning point. But your theme in the book is that they
> actually did fine under Biden, but also that the turn right had begun quite
> a ways before. You want to talk about what you saw happening and maybe a
> bit about how you became sensitized to it?
>
> *Silverman: *The book itself was probably inspired by David Sacks, who is
> now better known as Trump’s “crypto and AI Czar”, but when he started
> getting more involved in California politics around 2021-2022 and
> especially the “recall the reformist D.A. Chesa Boudin”, which was
> successful—a couple successful recall attempts involving California
> politicians happened there—and he started saying that this was going to be
> a model for other political efforts around the country. That’s when I
> really started thinking about tech and how some of these tech elites are
> intervening more in politics. But in terms of its antecedents, I think you
> can put that in mile markers of various places.
>
> I try to talk a bit about the post 9/11 consensus that developed and how
> at first, sometimes through coercion, but then through cooperation and at
> times mutual benefit, the tech industry really got involved in mass
> surveillance and formed a good relationship with the Obama administration.
> There was a revolving door there, at least on the consumer tech side, with
> companies like Uber and Amazon and this growing union of state, and
> corporate power progressed without a lot of interruption through both
> Republican and Democratic administrations. It’s more when we get to 2020
> and the Biden administration and some of the social upheavals of the Covid
> era that I think you get this strong reactionary currents emerging.
>
> *Krugman: *Your view is that this Silicon Valley, which we think of as
> having had this libertarian ethos, but they got basically very much
> intertwined with the national security state, and that goes all the way
> back to 9/11 and the years that followed?
>
> *Silverman: *Yeah, I think so. We know that early tech history, or really
> Silicon Valley history, involves building microchips that would be in
> Minuteman missiles. In some ways, the idea of tech as a center of the
> counterculture—or whatever’s left of it—and this liberal bastion, seems
> like a middle period that’s bookended by something a lot different.
>
> *Krugman: *Okay, that’s interesting because the surveillance state is one
> of those things that turns out: it exists, much more than we like to
> imagine. If you ever saw the old TV series “Person of Interest,” we kind of
> live much more in that world than we realize already.
>
> That was a cultural shift, but not obviously a partisan shift. Some of the
> players that you talk about had already started to basically become
> increasingly rightwing even before 2020, right?
>
> *Silverman: *Certainly someone like Peter Thiel, who’s discussed in the
> book and I think hovers over a lot of what we’re talking about—not least
> because JD Vance was his protege—he’s a dyed in the wool political animal
> who has been a right winger since he was in college. He’s long called
> himself a libertarian, but he’s also been very involved in politics in the
> state.
>
> *Krugman: *But some of these guys still espouse libertarian ideas,
> “everything is supposed to emancipate you from the heavy hand of the
> state.” And yet, that’s not the kind of thing they’re backing now.
>
> *Silverman: *I sort of see it on two tracks in a way. Someone like Theil,
> for example, has talked about funding the technology of freedom, what he
> was specifically talking about was seasteading, these attempts to literally
> escape mainstream politics. But then I think there’s also this parallel
> attempt by some of the same people to, “if we can’t fully divest ourselves
> from mainstream society and governance, then we’re going to take over the
> government and do what we can.” That explains some of the more recent
> electoral tilt.
>
> *Krugman: *Okay, so “seasteading”, for our listeners is, either requiring
> an island or building a floating thing where you get to basically have your
> own libertarian utopia free from any state control, right?
>
> *Silverman: *That’s right.
>
> *Krugman: *Which hasn’t really happened, I guess.
>
> *Silverman: *There’s been money put towards it, but nothing really to
> show for it.
>
> *Krugman: *You trace in the book this anti-democratic sense, which
> actually kind of even predates Trump a little bit, certainly with somebody
> like Theil.
>
> *Silverman: *Yeah. He’s someone who, since the 1990s, has written that he
> doesn’t think that democracy is essentially one of his main values. He has
> said that, “capitalism and true freedom are in tension with democracy,” and
> he much prefers capitalism, which is his vision of economic freedom above
> all. Musk even more recently—granted, he says whatever he wants and half
> the time he might be trolling—made reference to wanting a Roman style
> dictator.
>
> A number of these guys do indulge in various anti-democratic ideas. Read
> Curtis Yarvin, the popular right wing theorist who would very much like a
> monarch for the United States. So, it is something I think that is more
> than just kind of idle talk for some of them.
>
> *Krugman: *Yeah and of course, vast amounts of money thrown in. I think
> you actually worked briefly for Vivek Ramaswamy.
>
> *Silverman:* I did, that was an interesting experience. That was early
> 2019, I believe, and I was doing some corporate ghostwriting at the time
> and someone said, “hey, you might be able to go work for this biotech
> company he founded,” and I didn’t know much about it, but it turned out to
> be a big startup for its kind at the time and an introduction to this
> world, and I wouldn’t necessarily say I learned a lot about the company
> itself. They didn’t have much for me to do, so I didn’t last very long, but
> it was a glimpse into a certain world of people of extraordinarily high
> ambition, very well connected.
>
> I didn’t know him as a political person at the time. But soon after, when
> it seemed like he was being drafted into these political networks and
> started doing business with people like Peter Thiel and JD Vance, it kind
> of fell into place for me.
>
> *Krugman: *I was struck by, I guess quite early on, he said that “we
> should fire a million federal workers,” which was sort of a preview of DOGE.
>
> *Silverman: *That’s right. Some of the ideas that he started espousing,
> even invading Mexico, are now virtually Trump policies. I think people tend
> to dismiss lesser presidential candidates or ones that seem more like
> vanity runs, but I would say he’s someone who’s very smart, and I think
> whether you agree with him or not, and I don’t agree with him, but I think
> he’ll be around for a while.
>
> *Krugman: *What struck me, as someone who says, “let’s fire a million
> federal workers,” which is half the civilian federal workforce; to say
> something like that requires having really no idea what the federal
> government does. I mean, there’s a level of ignorance of how the world
> actually works. That seems to be a common theme among a number of these
> guys.
>
> *Silverman:* I should say, I think he’s smart in a more cunning, or
> operator capacity. But yeah, I think there’s this tendency in tech in some
> areas of finance that they think that they’ve discovered ideas for
> themselves or they have very little respect for experts. That’s something
> you hear from Marc Andreessen a lot, how much he hates experts. They don’t
> really entertain a lot of outside knowledge and they think that they’ve
> discovered ideas for the first time and that creates this arrogance and
> epistemological kind of narrowness that can be pretty troubling when it’s
> enacted by billionaires.
>
> *Krugman: *It’s always struck me how these guys could afford to be the
> most informed people on earth. I mean, I did a back of the envelope that
> said that Elon Musk could personally afford to maintain an intelligence
> service roughly the size of Britain’s MI5. And yet he gets his information
> from random tweets and I guess from these private chats with his buddies.
> That’s kind of an odd thing. It’s obviously motivated.
>
> *Silverman: *It’s strange, in some ways it reminds me of Trump, because
> Trump has the world’s greatest intelligence apparatus at his disposal, and
> he often just believes whatever Laura Loomer or whoever’s in the room tells
> him, or something he sees on Truth Social. It makes one call into question
> their states of mind or how they make decisions and how they ended up where
> they are. But it also makes it seem like some of these folks are just as
> susceptible to the political and algorithmic forces as the rest of us, even
> though they might be billionaires.
>
> *Krugman: *Algorithmic forces, meaning?
>
> *Silverman: *I’m sorry. Meaning whatever comes across the social media
> timeline or that they sort of become susceptible to the kinds of political
> polarization. I think that we see play out on social media.
>
> *Krugman: *Yeah. Now we have Musk owning Twitter and trying to tilt it a
> certain way. But even before this amplification feature, if you’re going to
> be working on social media it really does tend to—now we’re seeing with AI
> even more—reinforce whatever tendency you’ve got.
>
> *Silverman: *The word in AI is “sycophancy,” when these bots flatter you
> and say, “yeah, that’s a really good idea, let’s explore it more.” Of
> course, it’s a similar idea on social media, which is just engagements.
> We’ve long seen that these platforms are tuned for engagement, for keeping
> you on there, often to a lot of ill side effects, and not really for the
> health of the user.
>
> *Krugman: *I guess it probably happened after we went to press, but that
> whole business in South Korea, where the president lost his mind and it
> appears that—in South Korea YouTube is apparently the dominant social media
> platform—he just went down a YouTube rabbit hole.
>
> *Silverman: *That’s certainly something that happens and that’s a lot of
> how online radicalization works these days is that recommendation
> algorithms, or narrow online communities, funnel you deeper towards more
> extreme and self-reinforcing ideas.
>
> *Krugman: *Sorry, I gotta share. I’m a very heavy YouTube consumer, but
> only for music and history. I’ve had to discipline myself, or train the
> algorithm, which means never ever clicking on anything, either A: political
> or B: involving cute animals. Otherwise, it totally screws up your feed.
> (laughs)
>
> One thing that strikes me even more after reading your book is how angry a
> lot of these guys seem to be. They’ve got literally more money than anybody
> can spend and things have gone fabulously right for you and yet, so you
> talked about the reasons for that anger, but I’d like to hear from you a
> bit and then maybe throw a few things at you.
>
> *Silverman:* I think it’s pretty palpable. That’s one reason why I call
> it a “gilded rage,” it’s that you hear it from them. We do hear from these
> people directly on social media and these long interviews they give on
> podcasts—some of them have their own podcasts—or speeches they give
> publicly. They’re all content creators now.
>
> The emotion that often comes through is this sort of wounded anger, they
> feel victimized. Some of it is a bit in the style of classic right wing
> victimology, but it’s also, “the people don’t appreciate them enough and
> the world they’re trying to make,” whether it’s tech critics or regulators.
> But I think also they share a lot of the anti-woke grievances of the last
> few years, Musk very explicitly in his transphobia. The sense that
> progressive politics has somehow gone too far and has made everyone else’s
> lives oppressive and miserable seems to be an idea they share, despite all
> their wealth and power and the fact that I don’t think those left wing
> ideas had a major effect on tech. But, in some cases, I think it’s also
> personal. You hear someone like Bill Ackman say that, “Harvard turned his
> daughter into a Marxist,” or Elon Musk has talked a lot about his child
> coming out as trans. He said, “the woke mind virus killed my son.” That’s
> how he came up with this idea of “the woke mind virus”. He seems very angry
> about that.
>
> *Krugman: *Two thoughts I had, let me bounce them off you. One is that
> these are, by and large, not young guys. These are people who’ve been
> prominent and wealthy for a long time, and even though they’re wealthier
> and more powerful than ever there seems to be a sense that their glory days
> are behind them. I have a couple of thoughts, but do you have a reaction to
> that?
>
> *Silverman: *I think that’s an interesting idea because we are largely
> talking about people in their 50s and 60s who might have made their big
> fortune earlier, or let’s say someone like Marc Andreessen, who was a
> revolutionary in helping bring the web browser into being and then has been
> a very successful investor. But “bet big on crypto,” which didn’t do so
> well, there is a sense in which Silicon Valley might be out of big ideas.
> I’ve even heard someone like Peter Thiel talk about how AI is the only
> thing remaining. It’s the only bet that they feel like they can make, and
> that might speak to their poverty of imagination.
>
> I think there is something to that. Both the idea of getting older and a
> lot of these guys also claim that they don’t want to die, and sometimes
> funding things to that effect. But it betrays a certain mindset and also a
> certain kind of insecurity that maybe they haven’t created the world that
> they want to make.
>
> *Krugman: *Andreessen struck me as interesting because he made Netscape,
> the first real usable browser and it really did change things in a
> fundamental way. Then he ends up—caricaturing, but not too much—flacking
> Bored Ape NFTs. Obviously not a stupid man, but it’s got to feel like
> something of a comedown.
>
> *Silverman: *I think also when these guys get more into the realm of
> financial engineering—I mean of course investment is a legitimate field but
> far removed perhaps from actually creating stuff—that also maybe creates a
> distance between them and everyone else.
>
> *Krugman: *Peter Thiel looms pretty large. Thiel had this sort of
> manifesto, almost 15 years ago now where he said, “we were too obsessed
> with information and we need to get back to doing major stuff in the
> physical world. We were promised flying cars and instead we got 140
> characters.” It’s a famous quote. But he hasn’t done any of that, has he?
>
> *Silverman: *That’s very striking. That I think betrays or reflects a
> couple things. One, there is this great impatience with that. “We were
> promised flying cars, instead we got 140 characters,” that this future
> wasn’t delivered to them or it wasn’t allowed to them in some way. But
> also, why haven’t they done it? Marc Andreessen is someone who, while he
> was investing heavily in crypto and NFTs, was publishing this manifesto
> called *It’s Time to Build*. Well, why aren’t you all building? I mean,
> there are probably economic reasons for that, but I think it does show this
> profound disconnect between the world they imagined or even sometimes
> rhetorically argue for, and the one that their money and efforts are
> actually going to.
>
> *Krugman: *This is something I think about a lot. There was, in fact,
> during this whole period of them being disappointed, there have been some
> material world technologies that have been revolutionary, I don’t think any
> of these guys were involved in renewable energy. We’ve actually had this
> drastic world changing developments in solar and wind and batteries and so
> on. And none of these guys seem to be either involved with or appreciative
> of it. You would think this would be exactly the kind of thing that the
> Peter Thiel of 2011 would have said, “this is what we should be doing.”
>
> *Silverman: *You’re starting to hear a little bit of that from Musk again
> now that he’s split off from the administration, but that’s about it. I
> don’t know if it’s because of ideological capture on their part, but there
> have been amazing things happening in medical research. Or we could just
> point to mRNA research, but they seem much less concerned about treating
> illnesses now then these moonshot life extension projects.
>
> *Krugman: *That’s right. I should have said the Covid vaccine was an
> extraordinary, life changing, life saving technological thing. And yet
> instead, they’re obsessed with AI and saying that’s the only thing, whereas
> what about all this other stuff?
>
> *Silverman: *I think it’s potentially a much bigger world and one that
> could benefit from better allocation of capital. But that focus is so
> narrow on their end.
>
> *Krugman: *Okay. Another thing that occurred to me is “the world is not
> celebrating us enough.” You do raise that theme quite a lot in the book.
> Can you tell me about that? Because I definitely see that, but I think
> there are reasons which they may not be willing to acknowledge, but when
> did that really start? When did they start saying, “why don’t I get the
> adulation I’m supposed to be getting?”
>
> *Silverman: *I think broadly, before the 2016 election you had a pretty
> industry friendly press in regard to tech, exceptions of course, and
> nuances. But after the 2016 election and allegations about Cambridge
> Analytica or just in the role of social media in mobilizing voters and the
> fact that the Trump campaign worked pretty closely with Facebook, there was
> a big effort by the mainstream press to try to catch up and say, “okay, we
> need to actually start reporting more critically on some of these
> companies, or they have potential big effects in the real world.”
>
> That shift, while late in coming and imperfect, was not handled well by
> the Andreessens and Musks and other types in this industry and even the new
> round of critical reporting that started appearing, some of it good, some
> of it not; was just not accepted as part of the bargain the way that other
> industries might be more used to that. I think you start hearing that more
> during the first Trump administration when there was this real exhaustion
> with people, especially people who aren’t technical, they don’t respect
> people who are just people like me writing for a newspaper or something
> like that.
>
> *Krugman: *Yeah circa 2015, the tech industry was in huge admiration.
> Everybody loved them, and that kind of went away, although I would say that
> also went away in part because it kind of stopped being so interesting.
> Also we started to see the downsides.
>
> *Silverman: *There have been many people in academia or labor or activist
> circles who’ve been trying to talk about some of those downsides. I think
> also within a lot of the mainstream public and tech press, there’s this
> initial charm about innovations like Uber, for example, and then you start
> to understand the labor issues or traffic issues or any other number of
> things of how these companies operate. It doesn’t seem so magical anymore,
> but Silicon Valley is this industry that really depends on that
> self-mythologizing and really seems to want us to accept it in a way that
> we don’t always really get from other industries that perhaps have a little
> more measured view of their role in things.
>
> *Krugman: *Well, they have longer histories, but yeah, it does seem
> uniquely the desire for admiration is especially intense. Also in some
> ways, I don’t think it’s just the way we got accustomed, in some ways
> things got worse. I mean, literally Cory Doctorow’s new book *Enshittification
> <https://substack.com/redirect/f1acb610-7084-45a7-90dc-1dbc0a6e2768?j=eyJ1IjoiZHlhMngifQ.dLFHbWLw7uG3q0rBuTDTXWLZSmJwQKda3Lozk6Q2Z3I>*
> .
>
> *Silverman: *Absolutely. I think we saw some interesting services and
> products introduced but, I wrote an essay
> <https://substack.com/redirect/c08ab84a-e222-4664-b6ae-41de40e322f7?j=eyJ1IjoiZHlhMngifQ.dLFHbWLw7uG3q0rBuTDTXWLZSmJwQKda3Lozk6Q2Z3I>
> sort of in this vein for the Financial Times a few months ago, that a lot
> of the everyday experiences with these products are worse. We know that
> they’re collecting tons of data on us and kind of undermining us in that
> way. But just using these apps or these various services from Google Search
> to the Patreon app, I was noticing just the other day: they’re crowded and
> messy and often don’t do what we want them to do.
>
> *Krugman: *That’s interesting. Twitter had gotten fairly toxic even
> before Musk came along. I—even before Musk—had to stop and basically turn
> off comments. I had a lot of Twitter followers before I dropped out but I
> couldn’t use it as a vehicle for two way communication anymore because it
> was just infested with trolls, many of whom may not have been human.
>
> So you have people who went from being culture heroes to being attacked by
> villains, but at any rate ambivalent and couldn’t handle it very well.
>
> *Silverman: *Yeah, I think so. I think that that inability to handle that
> kind of ambivalence or the critiques that might be launched at other
> corporate leaders didn’t land as well with these tech leaders who did also
> want to be seen as celebrities a bit and kind of more available than movie
> stars; for example, we actually hear what some of them are thinking on X or
> other social media platforms and that kind of hybrid role maybe didn’t
> really work for that.
>
> *Krugman: *That’s true. The extent to which people were both billionaires
> and celebrities, that was kind of a unique moment and not normal. Most
> business people are boring and kind of accept that that’s how it goes.
>
> *Krugman: *And now even though they’d been bailed out and all that, they
> were absolutely enraged because at some point, Obama used the words “fat
> cats,” and how dare you? You do see some of this in other sectors, but it’s
> especially acute in tech.
>
> *Silverman: *That’s an interesting parallel.
>
> *Krugman: *I’m talking more than I usually like to.
>
> *Silverman: *I could always riff longer. (laughs)
>
> *Krugman: *Well, good. You know, the riffs are always good, but I’m
> wondering, maybe you can give me some insight here. These are guys who made
> enormous fortunes very fast, the long climb was shorter. Highly successful
> people, I’ve seen it in very limited ways in areas I know, but you’ve
> climbed the greasy ladder and you’re at the top, and then it’s kind of: “is
> this all it is?” It does look as if there’s a kind of dissatisfaction with
> the rewards to achievement.
>
> *Silverman:* I think you could see this playing out with anything, from
> the greed, to the seeming desire for *always more*, the fact that someone
> like Musk says he needs $1 trillion in order to take humanity to Mars. The
> kind of self-directed philanthropy like that, it’s all about them. Maybe
> even with some of these guys it’s their reported drug use. There just seems
> to be a recklessness accompanying all this.
>
> *Krugman: *Now, there was probably a lot more of that [drug use] in the
> original Gilded Age than history has reported.
>
> *Silverman: *Well there is that, yeah.
>
> *Krugman: *I have to say, the 50-something self-made billionaire
> completely hopped up on ketamine or whatever, with enough money to distort
> the whole political process, it’s kind of an alarming picture of where we
> are as a society.
>
> *Silverman: *The only parallel I can really think of is Howard Hughes.
> But he was doing it from his hotel room.
>
> *Krugman: *Yeah, and not trying to be a celebrity and all of that at the
> same time, he was a recluse.
>
> Political views: if there is a new Silicon Valley ideology, which you do
> talk about a little, but tell me, the hostility to democracy, what is that
> really about?
>
> *Silverman: *Well, I think that’s partially about their sense of their
> own supremacy, which in some cases is they think they’re genetic-elites or
> cognitive-elites. They think that they’re kind of a technocratic elite that
> has a right to rule and that the broader public just doesn’t really
> understand them or what they’re capable of, or what they want to do.
>
> There’s this broader impatience with democracy that it’s brought us to
> this point of dysfunction and “woke excess” and whatever other complaints
> and grievances I think they might have. You’ve seen this play out for
> years, in various parts of tech—I think it was Larry Page or Sergey Brin—I
> believe Page I quote in the book. He said a number of years ago that he
> “wishes they had some island with no rules where they could test out new
> technologies.” Now they talk about charter cities are zones of exception. I
> think this also goes back to the idea we mentioned earlier of the
> impatience that “the utopian future hasn’t arrived”, and if it hasn’t
> arrived well maybe someone’s responsible for it and that someone seems to
> be a public that “doesn’t appreciate them” and a government that “stood in
> their way.”
>
> *Krugman: *Which is odd for people who are so obsessed with, “we’re
> superior and we know more” and at the same time are hostile to the idea of
> expertise. Isn’t that a contradiction there?
>
> *Silverman: *I would think so. It just seems humility doesn’t seem to be
> a big part of the package. They seem to respect that some of the expertise
> of their peers, perhaps the people in their inner circles or networks or
> friend groups, but beyond that not so much. Certainly no one who is steeped
> in the humanities.
>
> *Krugman: *Or even medical science or whatever, which is odd. This is
> such a science based thing that they don’t seem to think the scientists
> count.
>
> *Silverman: *Well, I wonder also if part of it is, especially with AI,
> that they think they can replace or renovate every industry with their
> products and with AI, from education to government, to medicine and
> whatever else that contributes to that lack respect for expertise or any
> incumbents because they just assume that: they make a good enough AI and
> it’s going to replace them eventually.
>
> *Krugman: *Well, that’s quite recent. ChatGPT-original is three years old
> now or maybe less than that?
>
> *Silverman: *Yeah not that long.
>
> *Krugman: *This big shift in attitudes had happened already before then.
>
> *Silverman: *That’s true. I do sometimes wonder—not that college is the
> be-all-and-end-all of being an educated person or a well-rounded person
> but—a lot of these people dropped out of college or especially fetishized
> the drop out of college in the case of Peter Thiel, who pays people to drop
> out of college.
>
> That’s where some of that intellectual well roundedness might require some
> of that curiosity or even humility.
>
> *Krugman: *One thing that’s interesting, my own encounters with people of
> great wealth—not that great of wealth but relatively—tend to be in context
> where there are several different worlds present. So there’s political
> senior officials and then there’s wealthy bankers more than tech guys, and
> academic economists, everybody at the top of their particular greasy pole.
> What I see there is not so much disdain for expertise as everybody wants to
> be what they *aren’t*. The politicians want to get rich. The academics
> want influence and the plutocrats want to be respected for their minds.
>
> I’m wondering if at some point these people are sufficiently high level
> enough that they can just shut out any kind of expertise that isn’t
> them-and-their-friends and assume that they know better.
>
> *Silverman: *I think that’s well-put. That’s something I discovered a
> little bit when I did some ghostwriting for wealthy people, that they want
> to be known for certain things that they might not be currently. There’s
> this clip that went around over the summer of Travis Kalanick, the former
> Uber CEO, on The All-In podcast talking about how he’s using ChatGPT or
> Grok, he was getting into sort of the nether realms of what was known in
> quantum physics and he started calling it “vibe physics.” I don’t think he
> was exploring the limits of known physics with the Grok chat bot, but he
> can sort of claim he was and then they just nod along.
>
> *Krugman: *There was this recent incident where they claimed that an AI
> model had solved unsolved mathematical problems, and it turns out they
> actually were *solved *mathematical problems, they just didn’t know that
> the AI had found these obscure papers that solved them.
>
> *Silverman: *Oh wow. I hadn’t heard of that one. That’s remarkable.
>
> *Krugman: *Yeah. I saw something similar when Trump put his first set of
> tariffs, the Liberation Day tariffs. If you ask ChatGPT, “devise a set of
> tariffs that will eliminate the US trade deficit.” It came up with exactly
> those tariffs. We thought, “holy shit, AI is destroying us by giving bad
> policy advice.” But it turned out that it had actually scooped up—somehow
> it had ingested—Peter Navarro’s trade book and just spewed it back at us.
>
> Talk a little bit about how they bought influence. Then I have a follow up
> on that.
>
> *Silverman: *For one thing, they have become major donors mostly to the
> Republican Party, sometimes to Democrats (especially in California), they
> may want to keep all their bases covered. In the last election the crypto
> industry, which is a division of the tech industry, essentially became the
> biggest donor by-industry and really helped shape policy priorities in a
> way that I think we hadn’t seen before.
>
> One thing I think back to is during the first George W Bush
> administration, when you had the Vice President, Dick Cheney, holding
> meetings with energy company CEOs off-the-books. That kind of thing seems
> to be replicated and blown up now or being done much more. That was a
> scandal at the time, but now it’s just like they’ve become almost partners
> in the campaign and in the case of Elon Musk, he donated probably a couple
> hundred million dollars through his PACs and various efforts and ascended,
> literally when he got on the stage, but also ascended to this place in the
> electoral cycle that I don’t think we had really seen before.
> Unfortunately, especially since Citizens United, we’ve had a lot of
> billionaire money in these campaigns and unlimited spending practically.
>
> That close fusion and I think what also accompanied that was Trump not
> just changing his mind about crypto, but becoming a leading crypto
> entrepreneur right during the heart of the campaign season. That was
> something totally different. He not only took all this money and policy
> advice from that industry, but decided to go into business with them.
>
> *Krugman: *Campaign finance is one thing and that’s huge, the role of
> crypto as the dominant corporate donor was new, but the direct enrichment
> of the president and his family: that’s a new chapter in American politics.
> These guys seem to be better positioned to do that or have better tools for
> doing that than other industries ever had.
>
> *Silverman: *I think partially because they don’t have to create a real
> product that people want. I mean, yes, World Liberty Financial might want
> to sell to the broader public, but what they essentially serve as is the
> drop box for people who want to give money to Trump. That means, UAE
> princes, sovereign wealth funds and financial criminals from overseas, or
> Justin Sun, or Changpeng Zhao, as we saw recently both of whom have
> benefited politically.
>
> Because there’s relatively low overhead, you can just keep doing this and
> every regulation or law or investigatory body that might put a check on
> this has essentially been dismantled and Trump has pretty broad legal
> immunity. So it just seems like something that can keep going without much
> stopping it.
>
> *Krugman: *Yeah. The pardoning of Binance, Changpeng Zhao, that just
> happened a few days before we had this conversation. It’s truly
> extraordinary.
>
> *Silverman: *This is something we knew might happen because it had been
> reported that they were talking and then CZ (Changpeng Zhao) claimed,
> “well, we hadn’t talked about this but now I want a pardon.” He said that
> publicly. You could see this coming. But each time one of these happens
> it’s very striking. This is arguably, not by prison time, but probably the
> biggest criminal in the world of crypto or certainly one of the most
> important figures and someone who pled guilty to a favorable deal because
> he saw the writing on the wall and his company was supposed to pay the
> biggest fine in U.S. corporate history, or at least close to it. It’s not
> just that he pardons him, it’s that they’re already in business together.
> So, the fact that it could continue to be so blatant, so brazen without any
> checks on it, is pretty troubling.
>
> *Krugman: *The Gilded Age was pretty long, so there was a lot of
> corruption but it wasn’t ever quite as brazen as what we’re seeing now.
>
> *Silverman: *I think also because we all know about it. Maybe some of
> these things were reported on well at the time, 120 years ago, but you can
> see this stuff happening today. You can even go on the blockchain and look
> at some of the data and see some of these bad actors paying World Liberty
> Financial and knowing that 70% of that money is going to go into Trump’s
> pocket. So, it’s very proudly trumpeted.
>
> *Krugman: *At this point, we’re in a situation now where tech oligarchs
> feel that they’ve bought the government or are in the process of buying the
> government. And yet, history says that this doesn’t end very well for the
> people who think they’re doing that. You don’t even have to go back to the
> 30s, you can just look at what happened to the oligarchs who originally
> backed Putin. You think that you’ve bought the dictator but in the end
> “power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” and oligarchs who challenge have
> a “tendency to fall out of high windows,” do these guys not know about that?
>
> I’m backing away to the ignorance level.
>
> *Silverman: *They may not! There’s certainly an impulsivity to them, but
> I also think one thing worth remembering is before Trump was elected, there
> were so many investigations, formal or proposed, civil and criminal,
> touching on these guys directly or their investments. David Sacks, for
> example, invested in a telehealth company that was supposed to prescribe
> ADHD meds that turned out to be a Chinese pill mill, and its CEO was
> arrested.
>
> There’s just all kinds of stuff like this that I think some of them
> latched onto Trump out of ideology, but also self-preservation and maybe
> not thinking about what might happen on the other side. I think Musk so far
> has been fortunate not to experience much retribution, but it is a reminder
> that power does still reside in the executive.
>
> *Krugman: *So what you’re saying is, to a certain extent, it’s not just
> that they were greedy and thought that they could control Trump, but that
> they were already in trouble? They needed to own the government, or at
> least temporarily own the government in order to get out of their own
> messes?
>
> *Silverman: *In a lot of cases, yes. There was a quote from Trump, he’s
> speaking to a group of crypto investors, the Winklevoss twins and others a
> couple months ago and he said, “you were in so much trouble.” That’s more
> obvious with crypto. But yes I think there’s an element of that. We can
> remember Musk being interviewed by Tucker Carlson where he said if Kamala
> won he was, “screwed and would go to prison.” Of course there’s some joking
> to that. But at the time, even he was going pretty far, arguably breaking
> election law by paying off people through his lottery.
>
> *Krugman: *Wow. That had not occurred to me. We know that Trump needed to
> win the election to stay out of jail, but that it may be true of a bunch of
> the bros who backed him as well, that’s a new thought.
>
> Although they probably haven’t thought about what happens 2 or 3 years
> down the line when, although you do talk about a little bit, Musk seemed to
> think that he was at least co-president, and now he’s very much on the
> outs. But he has not really suffered financially from it yet, right?
>
> *Silverman: *I think that’s notable. I think it also reflects the
> relative but very minor restraint that Trump may have, compared to someone
> like Musk who’s tweeting in the middle of the night that “Trump is in the
> Epstein files.” But I think it also shows that the U.S government needs
> Musk for now. They need SpaceX for DOD satellite launches. He did lose the
> EV mandate, but Musk also has his own problems with declining Tesla sales
> overseas and the Chinese cars that are probably just as good, if not
> better. There are tools in reserve if the Trump administration wanted to go
> after him, from contracts to his immigration status.
>
> But right now we’ve seen that power still lies with Trump and that a lot
> of the other tech people who are friends with Musk or are around him have
> still kept close to Trump. Sach is still there. Joe Lonsdale talked on TV
> about how most of the DOGE operatives are still in place. I think they
> still want to hang on and see what they can do here.
>
> *Krugman: *Wow it is hard to believe. They went this far this fast,
> that’s what always gets me. I guess it’s probably an illusion but during
> the Biden years, we sort of had a normal government and people had
> connections, this has always been the case. Big money has always talked and
> Wall Street walked into Obama and talked him out of a lot of regulation
> stuff that he might have done, but it wasn’t like this. Now all of a sudden
> it’s this almost unrecognizable scene.
>
> *Silverman: *I think one less element of that that we haven’t talked
> about as much might be the defense tech push and this idea that, not only
> are they moving to the right, but they’re very jingoistic and they don’t
> feel any of the moral quandaries of the war on terror issues or even the
> fights over surveillance, some of these companies sued the government over
> secret surveillance orders. But now they want to build weapons, it’s cool
> to do this. They want to work with the CIA or work with the Israeli
> government or whoever else, and there’s just no compunctions about that.
> A16z calls it “American dynamism.” Those ideas are very enticing and also
> involve a lot of government contracts so they just further that embrace
> that we’re talking about.
>
> *Krugman: *Coming back to Peter Thiel and his: “why don’t we build
> stuff,” or adjacent. Who does build stuff? The Chinese. It strikes me how
> much we’ve, in pursuit of these guys’ ideals, abdicated a lot of what it is
> they claimed they were for.
>
> *Silverman: *Very much so. Whether it’s on innovation or manufacturing
> capacity or really inventing new things here at home. It is pretty
> remarkable, some of the things we see coming out of the Chinese tech sector.
>
> *Krugman: *The portrait you give us, it’s scary and sad because I don’t
> get the sense that any of these guys are happy. I mean, they got *all
> this*, and yet I think my life is better than theirs. (laughs)
>
> It’s a really kind of awful thing. Fascinating. Not the society I expected
> to be living in quarter of the way through the 21st century. But here we
> are.
>
> *Silverman: *I understand yeah.
>
> *Krugman: *Well, thank you so much. The book is enlightening, slightly
> terrifying. It’s a window on where we are. I appreciate you taking time to
> talk with me.
>
> *Silverman: *Oh, it’s a real pleasure. Thanks for your interest.
>
> *You’re currently a free subscriber to Paul Krugman. For the full
> experience, upgrade your subscription.*
>
> Check out my MasterClass on Economics
> <https://substack.com/redirect/116dbe81-9d4c-40fd-ad76-9c6a24e1f7ad?j=eyJ1IjoiZHlhMngifQ.dLFHbWLw7uG3q0rBuTDTXWLZSmJwQKda3Lozk6Q2Z3I>
> Upgrade to paid
> <https://substack.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.Zv_v7OyYALYafOkBoHmB6O3zIMTTIBQ97pgNri45Ssk?&utm_medium=email&utm_source=subscribe-widget&utm_content=177702248>
>
> Give the gift of Paul Krugman's Substack
> <https://substack.com/redirect/82fe32ee-1a19-4c02-93b2-3c3c82339ac0?j=eyJ1IjoiZHlhMngifQ.dLFHbWLw7uG3q0rBuTDTXWLZSmJwQKda3Lozk6Q2Z3I>
>
>
> Like
> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=277517&post_id=177702248&utm_source=substack&isFreemail=true&submitLike=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMzQzNDM3NywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTc3NzAyMjQ4LCJyZWFjdGlvbiI6IuKdpCIsImlhdCI6MTc2MTk5MzMzNCwiZXhwIjoxNzY0NTg1MzM0LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjc3NTE3Iiwic3ViIjoicmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.LJA6ZLATxg8Zx4_p0OzvK534JZ8FowGKc_rpTFBVG7Y&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-reaction&r=dya2x>
> Comment
> <https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=277517&post_id=177702248&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&isFreemail=true&comments=true&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyMzQzNDM3NywicG9zdF9pZCI6MTc3NzAyMjQ4LCJpYXQiOjE3NjE5OTMzMzQsImV4cCI6MTc2NDU4NTMzNCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTI3NzUxNyIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.n9aJUlh8hDoyl7w_-nOAJ4_8quTNNtmeGJUpGngDlZY&r=dya2x&utm_campaign=email-half-magic-comments&action=post-comment&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email>
> Restack
> <https://substack.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.p2KFYhF_ZqUk_SE0BqoOsoaCNl14ApMx4TSjBI_BGeo?&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email>
>
>
> © 2025 Paul Krugman
> 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
> Unsubscribe
> <https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9wYXVsa3J1Z21hbi5zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vYWN0aW9uL2Rpc2FibGVfZW1haWw_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpveU16UXpORE0zTnl3aWNHOXpkRjlwWkNJNk1UYzNOekF5TWpRNExDSnBZWFFpT2pFM05qRTVPVE16TXpRc0ltVjRjQ0k2TVRjNU16VXlPVE16TkN3aWFYTnpJam9pY0hWaUxUSTNOelV4TnlJc0luTjFZaUk2SW1ScGMyRmliR1ZmWlcxaGFXd2lmUS55cVFLbTJtSFRRVEFqek5UMUNLYi1hOEY4MXFQYmRzTE83RFRPQUJsZGhRIiwicCI6MTc3NzAyMjQ4LCJzIjoyNzc1MTcsImYiOnRydWUsInUiOjIzNDM0Mzc3LCJpYXQiOjE3NjE5OTMzMzQsImV4cCI6MjA3NzU2OTMzNCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.11CIA_dTP3ihmEDTXuHD6gcYdbjkSjW-FL27SSYpASY?>
>
> [image: Start writing]
> <https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vc2lnbnVwP3V0bV9zb3VyY2U9c3Vic3RhY2smdXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fY29udGVudD1mb290ZXImdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPWF1dG9maWxsZWQtZm9vdGVyJmZyZWVTaWdudXBFbWFpbD1tYXJrLmtvaHV0QGdtYWlsLmNvbSZyPWR5YTJ4IiwicCI6MTc3NzAyMjQ4LCJzIjoyNzc1MTcsImYiOnRydWUsInUiOjIzNDM0Mzc3LCJpYXQiOjE3NjE5OTMzMzQsImV4cCI6MjA3NzU2OTMzNCwiaXNzIjoicHViLTAiLCJzdWIiOiJsaW5rLXJlZGlyZWN0In0.11v8Cdy0wnhHKrZPLuJBPe8YbLewlmtDrU7N8cZIVLw?>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Turco Int'l Issues Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to turco-intl-issues-group+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/turco-intl-issues-group/CAD8KJ4HoPmTGD54AJ-keoqYjnsvhVnHdiX%2BbnZcxYqxxQ2W1kw%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/turco-intl-issues-group/CAD8KJ4HoPmTGD54AJ-keoqYjnsvhVnHdiX%2BbnZcxYqxxQ2W1kw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list