[shaldengeki]

Ah, yeah -- I debated putting these two paragraphs into the quote, but figured my post was getting a bit long in the tooth :)

How does this mindset influence your interpretation of his statement that a nonzero amount of corruption is good because otherwise things are "too boring"? To me, the preceding paragraphs seem to only confuse his intent -- it makes it sound like he could either be not taking the conversation seriously, or saying that he really does think that some corruption is a good thing.

[tominous]

I can't read Thiel's mind, but his point reminded me of Mancur Olson's description of roving bandits vs stationary bandits [1].

a "roving bandit" only has the incentive to steal and destroy, whilst a "stationary bandit"—a tyrant—has an incentive to encourage some degree of economic success

The same point could be made for having no interest vs having a conflict of interest.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson

[obstinate]

This is a stretch. The more likely explanation is that either he misspoke or has very strange priorities. Peter Thiel is someone who has done some pretty impressive stuff. But all his recent moves in politics have been pretty zany. After enough zany behaviors, it might be time to start wondering whether the impressive stuff was the fluke, or whether his skill in that pursuit doesn't translate to other domains.

[tominous]

You're right, it is a stretch. I think Thiel was saying something a bit less strong: that in the pursuit of a boring administration with no conflict-of-interest scandals, you can be too conservative. You risk having no-one who actually knows what they are doing.

By the way, if you think becoming a close advisor to a new president is unimpressive then I'd like to know what would impress you!