This was a very interesting debate in my opinion. It's rare to see tech leaders get so emotional about global issues and more importantly I think it's educational to hear what they disagree on and here is my summary of the most controversial statements from this debate: 1) Last 40 years in the US were a stagnation in terms of wages and innovation in such areas as transportation, clean energy, health, agriculture. 2) Progress in computer and IT industry contributed too little to the economy and people's lives. 3) IT companies with billions of dollars of cash should focus much more on such areas as transportation, clean energy, health. 4) Google has invested more in such areas than other computer/IT companies, but still very little and most of the money is burning away and should innovate more. 5) Internet and social media played a negligible role in helping topple governments in the Arab world. 6) Technology should have a large enough effect on the economy that governments (that operate at a performance level of US governance in the last 40 years) should not matter much.
2012...it's 2018 and Amazon / Apple has managed to hit the $1 Trillion cap. Revenues are still heavily reliant on search..... This did not age well for Schmidt
Peter's basic premise is that regulation is holding all innovation back because they force innovators into a pre-determined set of cookie cutter shapes. In order to have LEAP in innovation, you need to release the strangle hold on creatives and artists and engineers to really unleash the power of free markets.
It's the same old story.. investors do not want competition for the businesses that they have shares of stock in, so they criminalize the option for people to compete with them..
@@terrythompson7535 It’s a bit more than that. They both agree governments are mismanaging. Thiel basically says. “we have to innovate past that” Shmite says “we need better Gov to get past that. One of those arguments is defeatist and what may seem to be a paradox, pro the current government.
@@thst_bot5368 Governments exist to attack and defend markets.. it's their specialty. They should not be doing that. Referees should not be calling fouls in the game while making bets on a team. It's a moral hazard and you know damned good and well that it is. Also, that is NOT capitalism, because the losers are propped up and rewarded for bad and irresponsible behavior with public dollars. Insider trading is "legal" for congress.. so Paul Pelosi can personally benefit from the regulation of business by Nancy Pelosi. Markets do not deserve a monopoly on violence, and in real life they don't really have one.. because that is called a "caste system", and people will not tolerate that forever. Eventually they will stop supplying labor, discontinue purchasing products, or simply stop accepting the specific form of currency which is being diluted resulting in the destruction of 401k's, pensions, and savings of honest working people who produce products and services. Globalists are ignorant and eventually we are just going to stop trading with them. "Get woke, go broke" is for real. Treating laborers as if they were paper plates and disposable cups also can't work out if there isn't a large supply of them, but the WEF is going to try to starve most working people out of existence. People are rapidly becoming anarchist due to abuse of state power, and I don't know how much longer I can argue with them on it. Government was supposed to protect us from predation and parasitism, but it has become an institution dedicated to predation and parasitism..
@@terrythompson7535 …So what? The point here is bellyaching about this doesn’t change it. The state ought not? Ok that’s cute. The state does why would it stop? TBH the point goes much further which is this is the nature of the state. Markets like freedom aren’t free. The state is itself a market and will fill voids where they exist. It’s up to the market / innovators to outperform state services
@@thst_bot5368 Framing this as "bellyaching" as if this were an emotional argument is low brow, sir. My emotions are not involved in this conversation. I simply pointed out the dominance strategies. In no way does that make me a weak cry baby. I agree with your point about competition and innovation. I suppose people will just outcompete the state in secret after a total loss in the concept of state legitimacy. Why should anyone obey a command that instructs them not to survive? Only stupid people would obey such commands..
Basically, education needs to go online, and it needs to be more focused on what interests people or what they want to do with it. Eating up years of people's lives and taking tons of their money, on what will often be bad life investments - because the jobs you get with your degree don't make you that much money - is generally a bad idea. Also, much like how entrepreneurs, or new businesses fail, people need to be able to fail at a given vocation, find out that its not for them, and be able to cycle out to something else quicker that does work for them. A system that tries to eat up 4-10 years of your life barely and only partially preparing you for a given domain, is ultimately just not based in a good investment strategy that really favors the long term well being of the people or the economy.
+Leto2ndAtreides " education needs to go online, and it needs to be more focused on what interests people or what they want to do with it. Eating up years of people's lives and taking tons of their money, on what will often be bad life investments" ^this....glaring truth.
The facts of both individuals were correct, but Peter won. Yes, Schmidt is right - people are living longer on average, and developed nations are developing. But these are distractions, because having the third-world catch up is *not* technological growth and innovation. Where we are isn't defined by the average, it's defined by our greatest advancement. Like Peter said - where is the flying car?
Yes and where’s the technology so everyone in a developing country can live it up enjoy the good life too without us all destroying the planet , where’s that technological advancement
Thiel is just smarter than Eric and he has a better command of the facts. Plain and simple. Side note: It's important to remember that Eric did not build Google, he was brought in later as a senior management hire. Thiel built revolutionary companies from the ground up, was a chess master and was one of the highest ranked Chess players in the US as a teenager. *Ding Ding Ding* fight's over, no contest.
Tom Smith Thiel is very good at pointing out the issues of google and US economy. But when asked how he would manage or spend the Billions of google or any tech company, Thiel did not answer the question.
danpt2000 well the answer would kind of depend on the company, the precise market niche and a host of other factors, and is all hypothetical. It’s a silly question.
Not sure what chess has to do with the outcome of this debate. You seem to be saying that somehow this is an intelligence test. We could just compare IQs and save 40mins if that’s what you’re interested in
This structure of "debate" is horrible. Just three people cutting in and making comments over each other. Give each person 1-2 minutes at least to speak without being interrupted. -Austen
perfect recommendation to destroy debate and discussion flows. Just put a natural way of communication and press it into a corsette of 1-2 minutes speaking time. Mechanical bull shit.
Thiel is very in the moment here - impromptu style. Fascinating to listen to him when he's in this mode as it's quite different to his typically very measured style of communication.
This was a very interesting debate as I have never seen two people speak so passionately about technology. Innovation in technology could really change the world, we just need to start paying more attention and putting more effort into the tech companies that are just as passionate about technological innovation and its importance.
@@habibbialikafe339 yes, you can look it up. US is the country with the highest per capita prison population, only OECD country without maternal paid leave, most expensive Healthcare.
Thiel is an incredible man and makes some good points both here and in Zero to One, but is wrong about increasing food prices. Food shortage is almost always politically driven, there is no shortage of food. As for food production, the majority of the industry has got it wrong, no technology beyond what we already have is needed to increase production to keep up with a growing population, and the current way of doing things is akin to a drug addiction that degrades the landscape. Management practices that increase production without degrading the land already exist, they’re just not widely adopted. It’s a pity that these rich technology people can’t be informed of that but I guess when tech has solved everything else for them and made them so wealthy everything begins to look like a nail.
i don't get why Thiel is mad at Eric. They are discussing complex issues and each have points that are valid and each see the world with a different len, so what's the frustration about?
He's a showman, he doesn't have an opinion otherwise he'd defend himself. He just sat there and given the opportunity only stated some surfaced fabricated BULLSHIT! Talking about the future is always abstract. Thiel was coming from a point that today people deserve more than they're given considering everything is being automatized.
Not sure why Peter kept interrupting Eric Schmidt .. I think both of them had very interesting points that didn't really come across because they kept deflecting each other and trying to land blows.
I generally really like peter theil, but the way he "debates" really got under my skin. He kept interrupting, using political debate tactics like every time Eric makes a good point he changes the direction of the conversation. He seems to want to be right more than to have a productive conversation. Although it also seems a little good humored to be serious, I think thats an indicator of these mens integrity. I mostly agree with Peters premise, just not the magnitude with which he prescribes to it. I feel like he has a message he wants to get across and is pushing too hard (inaccurately) to make his point. In his defense, I don't think the message will get across without some propaganda and I think it's important to get that message across, though I truly doubt if the US can do that, maybe in China or Norway, somewhere with a more unified populous.
I'm still waiting to hear from these guys their predictions on the future of employment with the anticipated escalation in automation, and to what extent each sector of the economy will be impacted. And, I am waiting for an explanation as to what quality of life younger generations will experience as "Education" ruins many millions of people taking on these colossal loans to go into a sector that could ultimately dismantle their opportunities at having a career, or livelihood.
Mr. Thiel killed it. Surprised how rattled Mr. Schmidt became when having to defend his positions.... Also, I believe Mr. Thiel's mention of Russian Grand-masters was a veiled reference to the two games occurring on this stage... Checkers and Chess
Thiel is on a different level. By resume alone, the genius required to both CREATE and RECOGNIZE such "disruptive" endeavors is profound (lightening striking multiple times). An effective CEO is deserving of veneration, but Thiels are EXTREMELY rare.
Justin Quinn quantity of innovation will leads to quality. Millions of businesses in a capitalist market system will lead to more and higher quality. Compare BMW in West Germany to Lada in East Germany. That’s a result of quantity leading to quality.
Eric is completely wrong about the Arab Spring - and if he claims that his personal knowledge is what makes him disbelieve the macroscopic facts, then he must have been consorting with very well-off people in those middle-eastern countries. The top 1%ers who were least affected by rising food prices. I'm with Peter on this one, it's really outrageous to claim that masses of people not being able to afford basic food was less important than having obscure Western values overhaul their entire culture in the span of one season.
@@SmedleyButlerIII Fact. Rich talk people are better because they are and don't care so much for the population. Peter is right, no innovation since 2 decades. Social media and google Ads-adwords are Not innovation, but a business for Profit.
You don't defend your claim; agitation doesn't invalidate an argument, it's just not so nice. How is Erik mostly right? That's what you need to explain.
I know certain demographics like this type of popularist approach to an argumentation process, which Peter is a good example of (constantly throwing punches); however, if you really listen to Eric talk, you understand that he actually did try to answer to Peter's accusations and made his own sound arguments in a, most of the time, civil way. This is not to say that many of Peter's arguments were solid, I simply love his energy and when he "attacked" Google on the lack of invenstments from them. But, he chose to communicate most of his arguments through the lens of Romantic interpretations of process and innovation -myths like David and Goliath, a bit like how Apple came to be in the IBM era. Peter's young companies needed that.
Would love to hear them debate again to see what has surprised them in the last decade (if anything). For example, does Peter see AI / machine-learning as transformative? What does Eric see as the future of privacy and reverse-face-searching (clearview, facecheck_id, pimeyes, yandex etc)?
Enjoy Thiel's point about how Google is not investing in people but computers. Technology is a conduit, a very good one at that, but not a catalyst of change (think Arab Spring).
This is an excellent post. It shows how civilized intellectuals should have a disagreement and shake hands in the end with humour. I agree with points that both have made but I lean more towards Eric. I think Google has done tremendously well to assist businesses which have, because of it, innovated and moved the needle forward. Chrome is only a tip of the iceberg on what they've given away. My favourite example is Android. Without Android, you wouldn't Amazon TV. Did you know that? Of course, one can also argue that without Linux you wouldn't have Android - also true. Maybe Google can do more but not by much because of other restrictions Eric mentioned. Again, great discussion.
I think maybe when you put this comment, not getting enough talented people was a problem. Nowadays they have super long and weird interview processes and most get rejected. Its not an issue anymore.
Schmitt just doesn't get what peter is trying to say. Peter wants change he wants a new Internet, a new lightbulb, a new Google. something that would revolutionize the world
You cannot defeat reality in a debate. You can piss on someone's boots, and tell them that it is raining, but what you cannot do is still expect them to believe you when you consistently demonstrate the exact opposite of what you say.
Eric Schmidt actually thinks of everything through the lens of coding. I read his book and he really lacks common sense in regards with the real world. There's a line in his book where he says every company can copy Google's formula and succeed.
my god, the vultures started circling as soon as they heard Thiel's opening argument, but by the end of the debate there wasn't a single scrap of Schmidt left for them to feast upon
Google is not the savior of mankind, it’s an digital dictionary plus encyclopedia. That’s all. UA-cam is entertaining, perhaps educational to a certain extent. That’s all.
Peter Thiel is incredibly insightful and I truly admire him. But his comments as to China has no need to innovate except copying the US is wrong. China has become a serious innovator in technology. His views on China in his From Zero to One is also wrong, although very consistently.
Magic Math Mandarin I believe this video was made before China's recent focus on its inner market and currency. It has since ramped up its VC funding (which is a dubious metric by itself), and focused more on private sector tech. Yet, the argument Thiel is making still stands, though less obvious.
It is technology world but it has to be made simpler for everyday users they are still not there with safety aspects given in consumers hands, but can be created.
*"Its Quite Legal to Have a Monopoly As Long As The Company Doesn't Abuse its Power" Peter Thiel* *Or Its Quite Legal As Long As One Isn't Caught Doing Illegal*
Thiel makes great points, way better points than Eric. But in fairness, props to Eric for staying calm and shame on Thiel & the moderator for making this such a messy discussion. Thiel just consistently interrupts Eric at every point, in a very rude manner. The guy can’t even let Eric finish
they both have interesting points. too bad we couldnt hear their argument cuz theil kept cutting Eric off and going off on too many tangents for there to be a back and forth conversation. he treated this like a lecture, which is not constructive. Debates should reveal best arguments from both sides and lead to each learning a new perspective. I guarantee peter did not gain any new perspective here.
Watching Thiel steam role Schmidt was awful. I would have hoped the moderator would have jumped in there and try to get them to narrow down a format for arguing with each other. Obviously this video is a super important to watch nonetheless as Tilek is completely right. What a privilege to watch tech leaders get so emotional about global issues and truly disagree with each other.
Peter's entire argument about technology stagnating rests on the economy. He kept coming back to that over and over. I understand a lot of what he is saying and he delivers it in a good way but its all based on really flimsy evidence. Even if you agree with him that innovation is weak and technological advancement is slow, economic growth is hardly a RELIABLE way to confirm or deny the theory. Theres just way too many factors involved.
he was clearly fucking wrong on almost EVERYTHING, meanwhile videos from thiel from 12 years ago and 10 years ago and 6 years ago looks like he had a magic crystal ball or dr who telephone booth.
Note: The Arab Spring has failed miserably. Though Mr. Google may have spoken to some in the Arab world that wanted some kind of Spring, he apparently did not talk to enough people from various sectors. Hard to believe, but Ghadaffi was good for Libya and he was bankrolling quite a few development projects in SubSaharan Africa. Arab Spring seems to have been a cynical appropiration by USA and European powers of some real level of social unrest due to food prices in order to destroy Ghadaffi because he was working to move oil trade away from the Petro Dollar. "What a wicked web we weave when once we practice to deceive." Obama admin w Hillary unleashed holy hell in the Arab world. Only the strongest dictatorships and theocracies managed to escape that hell.
Schmidt sounds like a college brochure. Thiel sounds like a senior that’s telling you how the game is really played
Both are really smart... get over yourself.
@@javiertrevino5535 he’s not saying Schmidt’s dumb
both are smart. one sounds a lot more full of himself than the other.
I love the energy theil brought to this
Came guns blazing
I think it would have been better if Larry Page was there instead of Eric.
Larry's the real mind behind Google's current strategy
This was a very interesting debate in my opinion.
It's rare to see tech leaders get so emotional about global issues and more importantly I think it's educational to hear what they disagree on and here is my summary of the most controversial statements from this debate:
1) Last 40 years in the US were a stagnation in terms of wages and innovation in such areas as transportation, clean energy, health, agriculture.
2) Progress in computer and IT industry contributed too little to the economy and people's lives.
3) IT companies with billions of dollars of cash should focus much more on such areas as transportation, clean energy, health.
4) Google has invested more in such areas than other computer/IT companies, but still very little and most of the money is burning away and should innovate more.
5) Internet and social media played a negligible role in helping topple governments in the Arab world.
6) Technology should have a large enough effect on the economy that governments (that operate at a performance level of US governance in the last 40 years) should not matter much.
lol
Lol
AiDoS BaTyRkULoV Фейсбукка
great analysis!!!
Totally agree.
Never seen such an emotionally charged discussion by prominent tech leaders.
2012...it's 2018 and Amazon / Apple has managed to hit the $1 Trillion cap. Revenues are still heavily reliant on search..... This did not age well for Schmidt
Fact
And now, Amzn > Google. Everybody knows
Peter Thiel basically just became a billionaire so he can have this 30 minutes with Schmidt lol
@Ares Crosby Definitely, been watching on InstaFlixxer for years myself :D
@Ares Crosby Yup, have been using instaflixxer for since november myself :)
I love the mischief Thiel injects into these discussions.
Yeah he can't go too far otherwise he'll end up face down in his hot tub suffering a mysterious auto erotic 'accident'.
Mischief?
What happens when dumb people listen to beyond your level smart people haha
@@Veldtian1 gi
@@josephmelton4721 as in calling eric a socialist and stuff
Peter's basic premise is that regulation is holding all innovation back because they force innovators into a pre-determined set of cookie cutter shapes. In order to have LEAP in innovation, you need to release the strangle hold on creatives and artists and engineers to really unleash the power of free markets.
It's the same old story.. investors do not want competition for the businesses that they have shares of stock in, so they criminalize the option for people to compete with them..
@@terrythompson7535
It’s a bit more than that. They both agree governments are mismanaging. Thiel basically says. “we have to innovate past that” Shmite says “we need better Gov to get past that.
One of those arguments is defeatist and what may seem to be a paradox, pro the current government.
@@thst_bot5368 Governments exist to attack and defend markets.. it's their specialty. They should not be doing that. Referees should not be calling fouls in the game while making bets on a team. It's a moral hazard and you know damned good and well that it is. Also, that is NOT capitalism, because the losers are propped up and rewarded for bad and irresponsible behavior with public dollars. Insider trading is "legal" for congress.. so Paul Pelosi can personally benefit from the regulation of business by Nancy Pelosi. Markets do not deserve a monopoly on violence, and in real life they don't really have one.. because that is called a "caste system", and people will not tolerate that forever. Eventually they will stop supplying labor, discontinue purchasing products, or simply stop accepting the specific form of currency which is being diluted resulting in the destruction of 401k's, pensions, and savings of honest working people who produce products and services. Globalists are ignorant and eventually we are just going to stop trading with them. "Get woke, go broke" is for real. Treating laborers as if they were paper plates and disposable cups also can't work out if there isn't a large supply of them, but the WEF is going to try to starve most working people out of existence. People are rapidly becoming anarchist due to abuse of state power, and I don't know how much longer I can argue with them on it. Government was supposed to protect us from predation and parasitism, but it has become an institution dedicated to predation and parasitism..
@@terrythompson7535
…So what?
The point here is bellyaching about this doesn’t change it. The state ought not? Ok that’s cute. The state does why would it stop?
TBH the point goes much further which is this is the nature of the state. Markets like freedom aren’t free. The state is itself a market and will fill voids where they exist. It’s up to the market / innovators to outperform state services
@@thst_bot5368 Framing this as "bellyaching" as if this were an emotional argument is low brow, sir. My emotions are not involved in this conversation. I simply pointed out the dominance strategies. In no way does that make me a weak cry baby. I agree with your point about competition and innovation. I suppose people will just outcompete the state in secret after a total loss in the concept of state legitimacy. Why should anyone obey a command that instructs them not to survive? Only stupid people would obey such commands..
Is it me or does Schmidt often come across as slippery?
Man, Thiel takes Schmidt apart, merciless. Love it!
My favorite Thiel video this is killer
why don't you shoot it with a lower quality camera man this is so sharp it's hurting my eyes
@Shikhar Srivastava pretty sure that hd was widespread in 2012.
technological stagnation in camera tech
Basically, education needs to go online, and it needs to be more focused on what interests people or what they want to do with it. Eating up years of people's lives and taking tons of their money, on what will often be bad life investments - because the jobs you get with your degree don't make you that much money - is generally a bad idea.
Also, much like how entrepreneurs, or new businesses fail, people need to be able to fail at a given vocation, find out that its not for them, and be able to cycle out to something else quicker that does work for them. A system that tries to eat up 4-10 years of your life barely and only partially preparing you for a given domain, is ultimately just not based in a good investment strategy that really favors the long term well being of the people or the economy.
+Leto2ndAtreides " education needs to go online, and it needs to be more focused on what interests people or what they want to do with it. Eating up years of people's lives and taking tons of their money, on what will often be bad life investments"
^this....glaring truth.
6 years layer your comment has become reality basically haha
@@unclejuju12 facts
Drug addiction.
Has Eric Schmidt seen San Francisco recently?
I love coming back to this every year. Sometimes 6 months or so.
Skid Row 😂😂😂. Most billionaries are living in a bubble though
peter thiel knew all this in 2012???? and the GOP put up Romney?
He's gay, so not getting nomination any time soon though. I wish tho
@@thatPSNguy99 He also wasn’t born in the US.
The facts of both individuals were correct, but Peter won. Yes, Schmidt is right - people are living longer on average, and developed nations are developing. But these are distractions, because having the third-world catch up is *not* technological growth and innovation. Where we are isn't defined by the average, it's defined by our greatest advancement. Like Peter said - where is the flying car?
FLying cars will never reach the average consumer for many reasons.
Googe founders have two flying car startups. I mean this is a definition in Libertarian BS.
Flying cars would create so much chaos honestly I'm calling it before it happens
Yes and where’s the technology so everyone in a developing country can live it up enjoy the good life too without us all destroying the planet , where’s that technological advancement
Flying cars didn't happen because nobody wanted them enough. We could build them anytime we want, but for pragmatic reasons we don't.
Thiel is just smarter than Eric and he has a better command of the facts. Plain and simple. Side note: It's important to remember that Eric did not build Google, he was brought in later as a senior management hire. Thiel built revolutionary companies from the ground up, was a chess master and was one of the highest ranked Chess players in the US as a teenager. *Ding Ding Ding* fight's over, no contest.
Tom Smith
Thiel is very good at pointing out the issues of google and US economy. But when asked how he would manage or spend the Billions of google or any tech company, Thiel did not answer the question.
though Eric did cocreate Lex and if you have taken any computer science courses in college, it was a required program to learn along with yacc.
danpt2000 well the answer would kind of depend on the company, the precise market niche and a host of other factors, and is all hypothetical. It’s a silly question.
Not sure what chess has to do with the outcome of this debate. You seem to be saying that somehow this is an intelligence test. We could just compare IQs and save 40mins if that’s what you’re interested in
Drug addiction is lower? This debate was 2012 so I guess fentanyl reversed that trend.
Social media design with the help of psychologists is what new drug is.
Thiel’s Ritalin kicked in hard here
logical fruit Dude.. well, ok lollol
Not even remotely.
This structure of "debate" is horrible. Just three people cutting in and making comments over each other. Give each person 1-2 minutes at least to speak without being interrupted. -Austen
I dont agree, thats not how proper discussions work.
perfect recommendation to destroy debate and discussion flows. Just put a natural way of communication and press it into a corsette of 1-2 minutes speaking time. Mechanical bull shit.
Well said.
shame we never got to see Thiel and jobs share a stage like this...would have been golden
This is a heated debate! (aprox 19:30) I hope more people get to watch this video, these guys are brilliant :D
Thiel is very in the moment here - impromptu style. Fascinating to listen to him when he's in this mode as it's quite different to his typically very measured style of communication.
This was a very interesting debate as I have never seen two people speak so passionately about technology. Innovation in technology could really change the world, we just need to start paying more attention and putting more effort into the tech companies that are just as passionate about technological innovation and its importance.
In hindsight, Thiel got vindicated on almost every issue.
12:05 Schmidt "people are living much longer" meanwhile life expectancy has declined for the last few years in the US
is that excluding covid?
@@habibbialikafe339 yes, you can look it up. US is the country with the highest per capita prison population, only OECD country without maternal paid leave, most expensive Healthcare.
Thiel is an incredible man and makes some good points both here and in Zero to One, but is wrong about increasing food prices. Food shortage is almost always politically driven, there is no shortage of food.
As for food production, the majority of the industry has got it wrong, no technology beyond what we already have is needed to increase production to keep up with a growing population, and the current way of doing things is akin to a drug addiction that degrades the landscape. Management practices that increase production without degrading the land already exist, they’re just not widely adopted. It’s a pity that these rich technology people can’t be informed of that but I guess when tech has solved everything else for them and made them so wealthy everything begins to look like a nail.
So the problem is adoption of technology..if the technology rn was that advanced and good, it would be adopted by all.. It just isn't.
i don't get why Thiel is mad at Eric. They are discussing complex issues and each have points that are valid and each see the world with a different len, so what's the frustration about?
He's a typical underdevloped INTJ where being right is more important than anything else
Because Eric Schmidt is a fucking crony-capitalist and Peter Thiel hate that.
Let Eric speak, Mr. Thiel.
He's a showman, he doesn't have an opinion otherwise he'd defend himself. He just sat there and given the opportunity only stated some surfaced fabricated BULLSHIT! Talking about the future is always abstract. Thiel was coming from a point that today people deserve more than they're given considering everything is being automatized.
Not sure why Peter kept interrupting Eric Schmidt .. I think both of them had very interesting points that didn't really come across because they kept deflecting each other and trying to land blows.
It's because Eric is full of shit and Thiel has a very low tolerance for it
I generally really like peter theil, but the way he "debates" really got under my skin. He kept interrupting, using political debate tactics like every time Eric makes a good point he changes the direction of the conversation. He seems to want to be right more than to have a productive conversation. Although it also seems a little good humored to be serious, I think thats an indicator of these mens integrity.
I mostly agree with Peters premise, just not the magnitude with which he prescribes to it. I feel like he has a message he wants to get across and is pushing too hard (inaccurately) to make his point. In his defense, I don't think the message will get across without some propaganda and I think it's important to get that message across, though I truly doubt if the US can do that, maybe in China or Norway, somewhere with a more unified populous.
Expand your perspective son.
Google won't censor this
I'm still waiting to hear from these guys their predictions on the future of employment with the anticipated escalation in automation, and to what extent each sector of the economy will be impacted.
And, I am waiting for an explanation as to what quality of life younger generations will experience as "Education" ruins many millions of people taking on these colossal loans to go into a sector that could ultimately dismantle their opportunities at having a career, or livelihood.
Mr. Thiel killed it. Surprised how rattled Mr. Schmidt became when having to defend his positions.... Also, I believe Mr. Thiel's mention of Russian Grand-masters was a veiled reference to the two games occurring on this stage... Checkers and Chess
Thiel is on a different level. By resume alone, the genius required to both CREATE and RECOGNIZE such "disruptive" endeavors is profound (lightening striking multiple times).
An effective CEO is deserving of veneration, but Thiels are EXTREMELY rare.
"I'm more worried about quantity, not quality" like what?, if the product sucks then everything else fails with it. Don't fool yourself.
Justin Quinn quantity of innovation will leads to quality. Millions of businesses in a capitalist market system will lead to more and higher quality. Compare BMW in West Germany to Lada in East Germany. That’s a result of quantity leading to quality.
Eric is completely wrong about the Arab Spring - and if he claims that his personal knowledge is what makes him disbelieve the macroscopic facts, then he must have been consorting with very well-off people in those middle-eastern countries. The top 1%ers who were least affected by rising food prices. I'm with Peter on this one, it's really outrageous to claim that masses of people not being able to afford basic food was less important than having obscure Western values overhaul their entire culture in the span of one season.
I believe ,food problem was the ingredient and social media was the catalyst.
Wow Peter Thiel is a breath of fresh air - absolute pleasure listening to him speak.
its not hard to tell in these types of debates who is constrained and who isn't, who is really speaking their mind and who isn't.
I just came here because i saw a clip of this in a video by Garry Tan. Only one word is enough to describe Peter: *LEGEND*.
looking at FAANG stocks, Amazon has risen the most. FB is second. Seems like Theil was right about which companies are innovating at least...
Peter makes Eric look stupid. I agree with Peter completely. Eric lives in a google bubble and can't see the forest from the trees.
He said people are wealthier!!!! hahahahah, yea He and his friends
@@SmedleyButlerIII Fact. Rich talk people are better because they are and don't care so much for the population. Peter is right, no innovation since 2 decades. Social media and google Ads-adwords are Not innovation, but a business for Profit.
Loved it! I think Erik is mostly in the right here, clearly Peter's agitates
You don't defend your claim; agitation doesn't invalidate an argument, it's just not so nice. How is Erik mostly right? That's what you need to explain.
two great minds very interesting debate
VERY GOOD INFO THANKS!
I think both men came out of this looking very intelligent and considered. Very insightful points made on both sides
Very fascinating debate.
Let Eric Schmidt speak. Both Peter Thiel And Host are hardly letting Eric speak and Eric is being so nice to both of them.
Eric seems the most secure and sure footed.
yes, it's fun being secure in the thought that you have locked up the world government
KETAN RAMTEKE He talked the most
It's a great conversation. Just wow
Why does this look like it was filmed in the 80s? xD
I know certain demographics like this type of popularist approach to an argumentation process, which Peter is a good example of (constantly throwing punches); however, if you really listen to Eric talk, you understand that he actually did try to answer to Peter's accusations and made his own sound arguments in a, most of the time, civil way.
This is not to say that many of Peter's arguments were solid, I simply love his energy and when he "attacked" Google on the lack of invenstments from them. But, he chose to communicate most of his arguments through the lens of Romantic interpretations of process and innovation -myths like David and Goliath, a bit like how Apple came to be in the IBM era. Peter's young companies needed that.
26.35 its so savage when interviewer did not recognize the fortune editor and Mr. Schmidt tease him HAHAHA
Thiel's final comment about engineers was the final nail in the coffin.
yep.
the reason why thiel interupts is because eric is directly saying he is wrong
Great conversation.
Would love to hear them debate again to see what has surprised them in the last decade (if anything). For example, does Peter see AI / machine-learning as transformative? What does Eric see as the future of privacy and reverse-face-searching (clearview, facecheck_id, pimeyes, yandex etc)?
Enjoy Thiel's point about how Google is not investing in people but computers. Technology is a conduit, a very good one at that, but not a catalyst of change (think Arab Spring).
This is an excellent post. It shows how civilized intellectuals should have a disagreement and shake hands in the end with humour.
I agree with points that both have made but I lean more towards Eric. I think Google has done tremendously well to assist businesses which have, because of it, innovated and moved the needle forward.
Chrome is only a tip of the iceberg on what they've given away. My favourite example is Android. Without Android, you wouldn't Amazon TV. Did you know that? Of course, one can also argue that without Linux you wouldn't have Android - also true.
Maybe Google can do more but not by much because of other restrictions Eric mentioned.
Again, great discussion.
I think maybe when you put this comment, not getting enough talented people was a problem. Nowadays they have super long and weird interview processes and most get rejected. Its not an issue anymore.
It is Simple. Just look a blight side. Encourage people and company. Being a cheer leader is the key.
i think it's Thiel on the left I can barely distinguish the pixels
I side more with what peter had to say but yeah he needs to take it little easy.
I think Peter has great sense of humor .
Oh, Theil had no idea how much worse it was going to get with Google by 2018. Peter Theil definitely called it with many things.
Rod Brett
Google literally went from Bad to Worse
benefit those "with a certain amount of income"
Drug addiction is lower. Because of addiction to prescription drugs hence the opioid crises of recent years. Argument destroyed.
Eric Schmidt is spot on on demography. We have to give him that.
Thiel's arguments make more sense. Did not like him cutting Eric though.
this was so scattered
absolute savagery from theil
Schmitt just doesn't get what peter is trying to say. Peter wants change he wants a new Internet, a new lightbulb, a new Google. something that would revolutionize the world
You cannot defeat reality in a debate. You can piss on someone's boots, and tell them that it is raining, but what you cannot do is still expect them to believe you when you consistently demonstrate the exact opposite of what you say.
I'm more confused after watching this video. Like every other debate.... There came no conclusion
Interrupt much Theil?
Eric Schmidt actually thinks of everything through the lens of coding. I read his book and he really lacks common sense in regards with the real world. There's a line in his book where he says every company can copy Google's formula and succeed.
Who else is watching this because of college work lol ?
Peter Thiel was a savage with substance in this one.
They should have done a more structured debate where people take turns
""Let them eat I phones"
my god, the vultures started circling as soon as they heard Thiel's opening argument, but by the end of the debate there wasn't a single scrap of Schmidt left for them to feast upon
Chris C
I love it.
6 years later and all we have is massive stock buybacks!
Me from the future: It's worse.
Google is not the savior of mankind, it’s an digital dictionary plus encyclopedia. That’s all. UA-cam is entertaining, perhaps educational to a certain extent. That’s all.
What is Schmidt talking about? I literally don't understand a single point that he is trying to make.
That’s because you didn’t attend Burning Man, Andrew.
Roky Erickson rocks Seriously dude you're Ruby on rails.
Ouch, let them eat iphones!
Peter Thiel is incredibly insightful and I truly admire him. But his comments as to China has no need to innovate except copying the US is wrong. China has become a serious innovator in technology. His views on China in his From Zero to One is also wrong, although very consistently.
Magic Math Mandarin not at all .... his comments are spot on. The west invents....china streamlines.
Magic Math Mandarin I believe this video was made before China's recent focus on its inner market and currency. It has since ramped up its VC funding (which is a dubious metric by itself), and focused more on private sector tech. Yet, the argument Thiel is making still stands, though less obvious.
China is still struggling for true innovation despite enormous investment. It will come eventually no doubt.
It is technology world but it has to be made simpler for everyday users they are still not there with safety aspects given in consumers hands, but can be created.
*"Its Quite Legal to Have a Monopoly As Long As The Company Doesn't Abuse its Power" Peter Thiel*
*Or Its Quite Legal As Long As One Isn't Caught Doing Illegal*
That's how intelligent debate without abuse but with cheap shots and sarcasm
this was a seminal debate
What role do beachside clubs and rap music producers have to do in all this?
Peter is so very very smart… wow, astounding!
Head to head battle of the titans of optimism and pessimism. Good to see that even billionaire loose their cool in a debate about the future.
Thiel makes great points, way better points than Eric. But in fairness, props to Eric for staying calm and shame on Thiel & the moderator for making this such a messy discussion. Thiel just consistently interrupts Eric at every point, in a very rude manner. The guy can’t even let Eric finish
they both have interesting points. too bad we couldnt hear their argument cuz theil kept cutting Eric off and going off on too many tangents for there to be a back and forth conversation. he treated this like a lecture, which is not constructive. Debates should reveal best arguments from both sides and lead to each learning a new perspective. I guarantee peter did not gain any new perspective here.
Watching Thiel steam role Schmidt was awful. I would have hoped the moderator would have jumped in there and try to get them to narrow down a format for arguing with each other. Obviously this video is a super important to watch nonetheless as Tilek is completely right. What a privilege to watch tech leaders get so emotional about global issues and truly disagree with each other.
Peter's entire argument about technology stagnating rests on the economy. He kept coming back to that over and over. I understand a lot of what he is saying and he delivers it in a good way but its all based on really flimsy evidence. Even if you agree with him that innovation is weak and technological advancement is slow, economic growth is hardly a RELIABLE way to confirm or deny the theory. Theres just way too many factors involved.
I havent met one person that said they happe they have retired.. not a single one..
what was that 80's porn music at the start?!
Beck. The New Pollution.
Futurist vs salesman.
Looking at 2016 Schmidt was clearly wrong about his arguments on the need for education.
he was clearly fucking wrong on almost EVERYTHING, meanwhile videos from thiel from 12 years ago and 10 years ago and 6 years ago looks like he had a magic crystal ball or dr who telephone booth.
@@mauiciogonzalez5623 true
Note: The Arab Spring has failed miserably. Though Mr. Google may have spoken to some in the Arab world that wanted some kind of Spring, he apparently did not talk to enough people from various sectors. Hard to believe, but Ghadaffi was good for Libya and he was bankrolling quite a few development projects in SubSaharan Africa. Arab Spring seems to have been a cynical appropiration by USA and European powers of some real level of social unrest due to food prices in order to destroy Ghadaffi because he was working to move oil trade away from the Petro Dollar. "What a wicked web we weave when once we practice to deceive." Obama admin w Hillary unleashed holy hell in the Arab world. Only the strongest dictatorships and theocracies managed to escape that hell.
On one hand Eric says America's politics are bad and on the other he talks about static leadership is bad.
Who was the moderator? WHY DIDN'T HE IDENTIFY HIMSELF?
Thiel is loose on facts, but his ideologic drive and techno-progressist view are refreshing