A Guide for Contrarian Investors to Change the World

Google is the case study at hand, Thiel points out. By dominating internet search in the early 2000s, Google generated profits that enabled it to diversify into cloud computing, mobile devices, and robotics. According to Thiel, this dominant market position benefits not only investors: in fact, companies that achieve genuine monopoly status use their profits to innovate—as Google has done—and thereby deliver significant social value. “Monopoly drives progress,” Thiel writes, characteristically contrarianly, “and the expectation of monopoly profits over the next several years—or even decades—can provide a powerful incentive for innovation.” Thiel’s statement is a compelling point—at least as a discussion prompt, it certainly is. Much of today’s communications infrastructure rests on twentieth-century technological breakthroughs: the transistor, UNIX, and digital signal transmission all originated under the monopolies of AT&T and Bell Telephone. As a counterexample, consider Microsoft: a classic case of a company wielding formidable corporate power and market share to bully customers and restrict their choices, without delivering innovation commensurate with its dominance. In sum, Thiel appears weary of the fact that many economists focus solely on the dangers of monopoly while overlooking its potential benefits. In Thiel’s philosophical view, these economists are plainly wrong. His faith in markets’ self-correcting capacity leads him to believe that even dominant firms like Microsoft will ultimately be eclipsed by younger, more creative companies—such as Google. Thiel assures us that capitalism possesses an innate instinct to correct technological missteps in due course. Thiel makes no mention whatsoever of his advocacy for or funding of fundamental science and engineering—fields that underpin everything in Silicon Valley. Thiel’s views on monopoly constitute an objective description of a familiar business metaphor long circulating in Silicon Valley: always build technology ten times faster than what exists today; seek “network effects” that scale your product’s value across ever-larger user bases—but make them appear novel. Sometimes Thiel forms incisive insights precisely by bluntly rejecting widely accepted maxims. For instance, he advises entrepreneurs to disregard the oft-cited tech-industry mantra of “first-mover advantage.” “It’s better to be last,” he says, “to achieve massive growth late in a given market—and then enjoy monopoly profits for years, even decades.” Anyone aspiring to succeed in Silicon Valley should seriously consider Thiel’s advice. His grasp of California’s startup culture surpasses that of most others, and his ideas are highly compelling. And let’s not forget: he’s already earned over $1 billion playing this game. Whether his views prove especially helpful to us remains unclear. Today, Thiel has spent years exploring one major question: How do we avoid a bleak future marked by resource depletion, environmental degradation, mass unemployment, and technological stagnation? He believes the answer lies in a wave of startups capable of growing into giants on par with Microsoft, Google, and Amazon—but tackling far larger problems, such as curing cancer or delivering affordable clean energy.

Chapter 7: No Messiah

Buffett owns extensive coal-fired facilities and holds shares in ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy—the tar sands giant. Most strikingly, in 2009 Buffett announced his company would spend $26 billion to acquire the remaining stake in Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF)—a deal Berkshire Hathaway hailed as its largest ever. Buffett called the transaction “a bet on America.” It was, in fact, also a bet on coal: BNSF is the largest coal transporter in the United States—and one of the most forceful drivers of U.S. coal exports to China. Such investments steer us toward even more catastrophic warming. Yet even so, Buffett stands poised to become one of the biggest winners. This is because he is a leading player in the reinsurance industry—the sector most likely to profit handsomely from climate-related disasters. As Eli Lehrer, an insurance-industry advocate who defected from the controversial Heartland Institute after its infamous billboard campaign, explained: “A large reinsurer like Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway is likely simultaneously insuring an industrial crisis in Japan, a flood in Britain, a hurricane in Florida, or a tornado in Australia—because these events are highly unlikely to occur at the same time. Even if the reinsurer must pay out heavily for one event, it can still earn substantial profits and returns from premiums collected on all the others.” Perhaps we should remember that Noah’s Ark was not built to save everyone—but only the very few fortunate people and creatures. The billionaire offering fresh hope in the climate arena is Tom Steyer. He is a principal donor to numerous climate campaigns and anti-tar-sands movements, and has contributed heavily to Democratic political causes. Steyer’s wealth stems from Farallon Capital Management—a hedge fund deeply entwined with fossil fuels—and he has made serious, earnest attempts to reconcile business operations with climate concerns. Unlike Branson, however, Steyer left the firm he founded, as the Globe and Mail reported, because “the firm prized its profit bottom line—not its carbon emissions.” He elaborated: “I’m passionate about advancing what I believe is right, and my conscience won’t allow me to pursue such work while simultaneously engaging in another job diametrically opposed to it—and earning substantial compensation from it.” This stance stands in stark contrast to Branson’s, who eagerly seeks to prove that a fossil-fuel-based company can both do the right thing and lead its entire industry toward a clean economy. Branson also differs from Bloomberg and Gates, both of whom actively shape promising climate solutions through charitable giving. For example, Bloomberg has been hailed as a hero for donating generously to green organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund, and for enacting widely regarded progressive climate policies during his tenure as Mayor of New York City.

Billionaire Tom Steyer’s CRE Investing Arm Targets California

Sep 30, 2026

Galvanize Real Estate invested $165 million in California industrial properties, leveraging high electricity costs to upgrade energy efficiency with solar and battery systems. The firm aims for operational net zero within three years before reselling the upgraded assets.

bloomberg

2026-09-30

Billionaire Tom Steyer’s CRE Investing Arm Targets California

Billionaire Tom Steyer’s CRE Investing Arm Targets California

FAQ