When you run companies like Uber that violate laws left and right I don't think the founders or boards have any issue where the money comes from.

The funniest part is that most of that cash just gets burned

It's like some kind of karmic justice.

Not burned, but transferred to Silicon Valley landlords!

Many of those landlords happen to be offshore billionaires, in some cases organizations like the Saudi sovereign wealth fund.

So basically zero risk for these guys?

If you are SA, the risk that softbank will need to issue you a middleman with no ethics to manage your real estate is 100%.

How is this possibly the 'saddest' part? A man was brutally murdered. Get some perspective, jeez.

I think he means what is also sad is that the powerful in SV dont care. Words matter but I doubt he meant that is sadder then the tragedy that happened in the embassy.

Any companies that are known to not take "dirty" cash when trying to fund money?

This can be difficult because the money is often funneled through other entities (as LPs to VC and growth funds, etc.)

I've had more than one VC tell me they couldn't guarantee that there was no Saudi money in their fund, even though they didn't have any direct KSA LPs.

I would hope we (Seam) are one of them. K, granted it's extremely hard to trace all the LPs of a fund; but at the very least we don't take calls with questionable funds/individuals. Once we've shipped our first product, I'll try to write down why, and propose a framework by which founders can better assess the money they're taking. NOT all money is green.

Probably not but when you have some who travel to Saudi Arabia to fund raise and schmooze, it's a bit more direct.

No.

Isn't that a good sign? I prefer people investing in new tech than killing people just to stay in the old tech.

The more they are able to diversify their profits away from oil towards renewables (or other assets), the faster we all can transition to cleaner tech.

oh, I think it just creates a morally hazardous situation where it's harder to push back on stuff like the Khashoggi killing because we like their money.

The alternative is their money goes somewhere else, possibly to those more politically aligned.

I see, it's true. But the consequences of not accepting outside investment for US for moral reasons would be a disaster, as the money would just go to more corrupt countries.

As Jordan Peterson expressed it quite well, the problem with United Nations is that they have too many issues to solve instead of figuring out what action has the highest ROI and focusing efforts there.

Another issue is that already people in less corrupt countries prefer not to have babies, which means that the workforce in corrupt countries is growing much faster. US has to be very smart if it wants to stay relevant.

I remember when SA and UAE wanted to build fabs in the middle east in their never ending effort to diversify away from oil. They soon realized they don’t have the workforce without importing skilled labor. SA has one of the [hardest-to-motivate workforces] in the world.

They are basically the counterexample for universal basic income.

I don't think most proponents of UBI are suggesting we give people enough money to push them into the "rich asshole" level of wealth.

But I do agree that UBI proponents have to come up with an argument against the "pay people just enough to do drugs and play videogames all day" example. Most of the population is not made of highly motivated self-starters, despite what every job posting looks for.

> But I do agree that UBI proponents have to come up with an argument against the "pay people just enough to do drugs and play videogames all day" example. Most of the population is not made of highly motivated self-starters, despite what every job posting looks for.

I support UBI and see no problem with people "slacking" all day. Like you say, society is not made up of highly motivated self-starters. Why force those people to work when automation will make it completely unnecessary?

> Why force those people to work when automation will make it completely unnecessary?

Perhaps it will. It hasn't made it completely unnecessary yet, though. Somebody who can't work? I'm all for helping them. Someone who won't? Let them mooch off of someone that is not the taxpayer.

I see giving people their freedom as being worth more than forcing them to work. Take automation as a given. It's been a trend for decades.

No one consented to be born into a system where they are enslaved by capital holders. Consider that an artifact of bootstrapping humanity through the industrial revolution.

> Take automation as a given. It's been a trend for decades.

I do not take automation as a given, because it is not yet able to produce all that we want. You're living in a dream world. That dream may one day be a reality; that day is not yet here.

> No one consented to be born into a system where they are enslaved by capital holders.

I did not consent to be taxed to pay for those who choose not to work, either.

Automation and globalization have already decimated our workforce. It’s a reality we live in today.

> I did not consent to be taxed to pay for those who choose not to work, either.

If you support UBI you will also have the option to not work (and therefore pay no taxes). Really though unless you’re a billionaire I don’t think you have anything to worry about.

People without a purpose in life are highly susceptible to depression and self destructive behaviors. I don't like forcing people into bullshit jobs, but at least it gets them out of the house and interacting with other people.

Having to work to survive is far more depressing than knowing I'm free to do as I please. Death by ennui is a straw man and anyone living near subsistence levels will tell you as much.

It may be selection bias but when I did community service in coal country WV there seemed to be only two kinds of people in those forsaken towns. Depressed or self destructive. No opportunity and no escape is a hell of a combo. They weren’t starving, but they didn’t have money for much of anything else so their house was decaying around them (our job was fixing up the houses) along with the rest of their lives. This was back in the 90’s. I suspect those towns have been lost to opioids and meth now.

Those people would have benefited from UBI for sure. They are an example of people who’s jobs we’re lost to modernization.

There’s nothing more “destructive” then spending your life working to survive. It’s literally wasting the most valuable thing you have. Putting those guys back in a coal mine so we don’t have to see them is not a solution.

Work does not need to be the purpose in life either.

Because they get bored and may do more harm than good. See affluenza.

Well the often cited (and easy to believe) weed and video games wouldn't be causing any harm. In fact you could argue that being a "fan" would help support creators, even if just in spirit.

This assumes it's a proble and not a symptom of a problem. If someone takes the little money they get for food and necessaties and spends them on drugs, they are clearly on need of help and we as a society should help them combat that destructive behaviour, not shun them.

If someone is happy enough with basic food and shelter, no luxuries, is it a problem if they just sit around? isn't this better than fostering a dangerous criminal with disdain for society, thus endangering everyone in the local community?

if someone wants more (e.g. a Gaming PC) then they will have to work for it. Food and shelters should be considered human rights by virtue of existence. We will flourish more as a species if we move away from that hyper-individualist view from which we see the world, to a kinder, community-oriented view.

Let's not be assholes. If I get 100k a year, losing 1000k for another person is no problem, assuming I'm not a greedy bastard with a hardon for cash.

Exactly. Contrast that with another oil rich country that did something: Norway.

Norway's scale of UBI is a lot less than the oil rich Arabic states' though. Those states may not have much civil liberties but material quality of life is undeniably not bad for most locals.

Norway doesn't have UBI.

> SA has one of the [hardest-to-motivate workforces] in the world.

Why do you believe this?

Even worse, SV is located in a country that is not better than Saudi Arabia when we talk about extra-judicial killings (just think about Obama-era drone killings)

And still has a military-run black site for illegal detainment and torture. And not only that, they refuse international law and to subject their war criminals to prosecution. Strike that, they have a law allowing themselves to invade anyone investigating their war criminals, have sanctioned such investigators, and actively pardon war criminals.

The US has some history of politically-motivated suppression of journalists (Assange), but has yet to advance to murdering them.

> not better than Saudi Arabia

> Obama-era drone killings

The drone killings are not good, but in no way equivalent to the ills of SA. The murder of a journalist isn't the same as the murder of a wanted violent criminal.

Yeah, because those drones only kill 'violent criminals', not also civilians. Also, these 'violent criminals' have a right for a fair process, otherwise it's just murder - which it is.

I'm pretty sure I described both cases as murder.

In any case: when has the US targeted civilians? And where does the "right to X" come from?

Trump continued (and even increased) the drone killings, but removed the reporting requirements. Calling it the "Obama-era drone killings" ignores the unprecedented amount of killings under the previous administration.

Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-kill...

I call it Obama-era because the guy got a Nobel Peace Prize while doing that. I have a even lower opinion of Trump, but at least he was widely despised by the international community, unlike the former

Furthermore. The Obama admin added transparency and accountability measures while the Trump admin ditched them.

Hence the reason they are still the Obama drone strikes. Out of sight out of mind.

I'm sure it will be great solace to the families of those murdered by America that the Americans are proud to talk about it again