Peter Thiel warned about economic disenfranchisement, but missed how it creates market distortions. 56% of Jewish Americans are altering behavior due to safety concerns - here's the deal flow impact.
Certainly on point, but let's not forget the flip side of this scapegoating. A large proportion of economically disenfranchised people have been persuaded to scapegoat people even more disenfranchised: Immigrants, minorities, the working poor, etc. Some of our fellow investors have actively encouraged and exploited this, while others just don't care. A few, like Mark Benioff, understand that this is not only immoral but unsustainable. So we may feel insulated by our privileged position, but we ignore this at our own risk. Scapegoating, whether upward or downward, is both dishonest and self-defeating.
I documented specific portfolio risks: antisemitic incidents up 893%, 56% of Jewish Americans altering behavior, creating measurable talent and deal flow disruptions.
Your response? 'What about other groups?'
Jews represent 0.2% of global population but founded OpenAI, Google, Meta, PayPal. When economic anxiety targets this demographic, it creates concentration risk most allocators aren't measuring.
This is investment intelligence, not a sociology seminar.
You don’t know me, so you don’t know that I have quoted many of the same examples as you do, in defending Jews and Israel from people who scapegoat them. I am also been a partner in a number of Israeli venture funds, so I know exactly how remarkable that ecosystem is. You can dismiss my point as deflection, but then you have to dismiss the arguments of someone like Benioff (who was on your list) that a society without a viable working class is at risk. This is not sociology, it is also investment intelligence. We have a huge mass of voters in this country (and others) who have latched on to ultimately self-destructive scapegoating, rather than looking at things rationally. Where will the next life-saving device come from? Where will their elder-care come from, when 80% of the caregivers are gone? Both questions are relevant. You and I are in violent agreement re. Jews and Israel; I just pointed out that the problem is broader.
I laid out a specific, quantifiable risk to capital flows and innovation, one that’s backed by real data and is systematically ignored by the allocator class.
When you shift the conversation from numbers to sociology, you’re doing exactly what allows LPs and GPs to ignore the math.
The point isn’t “who else suffers”
It’s that this form of scapegoating creates a concentrated risk that nobody is pricing.
If you want to solve for general social instability, fine. But don’t pretend that’s the same thing as portfolio exposure to anti-semitism.
If you actually care about the risk, help build the model.
If not, let’s call this what it is: an excuse to stay comfortable.
The pattern:
Adam: “Here’s the math. Here’s the risk. Who’s measuring it?”
Charles: “But what about these other risks? And let’s discuss broader suffering of other people…”
Result: No action, just more talk. Risk ignored.
This is how capital markets consistently underprice tail risk. By letting conversations get abstracted into hand-wringing.
I would not call it hand-wringing. We have made a decision to continue investing in Israeli deals, knowing the elevated risks. Why? Because the concentration of quality is high, and the geopolitical risks include too many edge cases (eg. WWIII) to be modeled in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, my concern about scapegoating of immigrants etc. is only partly driven by moral considerations. There are also risks and opportunities brought on by mass deportations. We are stepping up our interest in robotics for medical and personal care, as this is a likely long-term trend that will get goosed by the current administration's policies. However, we are reassessing the viability of service businesses which are not well positioned to adjust to a near-term sudden loss of workers.
As for the targeting of successful Jews, this is tightly linked to the broader attack on our research institutions. We are shifting our investment focus (which is mainly in medical innovation and services) away from the U.S. toward other countries. After a four-year pause in China, we are gearing up to re-engage there, because we think the shortage of inbound investment capital there was an overreaction, and that provides a contrarian opportunity.
Certainly on point, but let's not forget the flip side of this scapegoating. A large proportion of economically disenfranchised people have been persuaded to scapegoat people even more disenfranchised: Immigrants, minorities, the working poor, etc. Some of our fellow investors have actively encouraged and exploited this, while others just don't care. A few, like Mark Benioff, understand that this is not only immoral but unsustainable. So we may feel insulated by our privileged position, but we ignore this at our own risk. Scapegoating, whether upward or downward, is both dishonest and self-defeating.
This is exactly the deflection I'm describing.
I documented specific portfolio risks: antisemitic incidents up 893%, 56% of Jewish Americans altering behavior, creating measurable talent and deal flow disruptions.
Your response? 'What about other groups?'
Jews represent 0.2% of global population but founded OpenAI, Google, Meta, PayPal. When economic anxiety targets this demographic, it creates concentration risk most allocators aren't measuring.
This is investment intelligence, not a sociology seminar.
You don’t know me, so you don’t know that I have quoted many of the same examples as you do, in defending Jews and Israel from people who scapegoat them. I am also been a partner in a number of Israeli venture funds, so I know exactly how remarkable that ecosystem is. You can dismiss my point as deflection, but then you have to dismiss the arguments of someone like Benioff (who was on your list) that a society without a viable working class is at risk. This is not sociology, it is also investment intelligence. We have a huge mass of voters in this country (and others) who have latched on to ultimately self-destructive scapegoating, rather than looking at things rationally. Where will the next life-saving device come from? Where will their elder-care come from, when 80% of the caregivers are gone? Both questions are relevant. You and I are in violent agreement re. Jews and Israel; I just pointed out that the problem is broader.
You’re blurring the issue.
I laid out a specific, quantifiable risk to capital flows and innovation, one that’s backed by real data and is systematically ignored by the allocator class.
When you shift the conversation from numbers to sociology, you’re doing exactly what allows LPs and GPs to ignore the math.
The point isn’t “who else suffers”
It’s that this form of scapegoating creates a concentrated risk that nobody is pricing.
If you want to solve for general social instability, fine. But don’t pretend that’s the same thing as portfolio exposure to anti-semitism.
If you actually care about the risk, help build the model.
If not, let’s call this what it is: an excuse to stay comfortable.
The pattern:
Adam: “Here’s the math. Here’s the risk. Who’s measuring it?”
Charles: “But what about these other risks? And let’s discuss broader suffering of other people…”
Result: No action, just more talk. Risk ignored.
This is how capital markets consistently underprice tail risk. By letting conversations get abstracted into hand-wringing.
I would not call it hand-wringing. We have made a decision to continue investing in Israeli deals, knowing the elevated risks. Why? Because the concentration of quality is high, and the geopolitical risks include too many edge cases (eg. WWIII) to be modeled in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, my concern about scapegoating of immigrants etc. is only partly driven by moral considerations. There are also risks and opportunities brought on by mass deportations. We are stepping up our interest in robotics for medical and personal care, as this is a likely long-term trend that will get goosed by the current administration's policies. However, we are reassessing the viability of service businesses which are not well positioned to adjust to a near-term sudden loss of workers.
As for the targeting of successful Jews, this is tightly linked to the broader attack on our research institutions. We are shifting our investment focus (which is mainly in medical innovation and services) away from the U.S. toward other countries. After a four-year pause in China, we are gearing up to re-engage there, because we think the shortage of inbound investment capital there was an overreaction, and that provides a contrarian opportunity.