(Pardon the bit of philosophy, but I think it's on-topic, well-grounded, and substantially novel (at least to me!):)

The myriad of issues of the present era seem chaotic, but I'm starting to believe I see the defining theme, the one that will characterize it in history books, and I see the story in the article as merely a part of it: The contest between democracy and liberty on one hand, and wealth and power for an elite on the other. People like Thiel say "freedom and democracy" are not "compatible" with "capitalism".[0] Similarly, the Chinese government (and Russian, and others) is a wealthy elite that keeps the power from its citizens and the bulk of the wealth to itself. It's aristocracy: The belief that power should be controlled by the elite and inherited, not delegated by a vote of universal peers with equal rights.

It's not really "capitalism" that that Thiel advocates, but economic power for the currently wealthy unrestricted by the democratic wishes of other citizens (i.e. simply more power for himself, the oldest, most base political instinct - again, see China). He has fellow advocates in the current US government: For example, the Secretary of State (another business elite) and others have openly said the US shouldn't sacrifice making money for human rights, and openly support brutal, oppressive dictatorships. In the US courts, conservatives have given corporations and wealthy far more power over the democratic will of the people - corporations have gained Constitutional rights of real humans; they and the wealthy have gained unlimited, anonymous financial influence in politics and elections; and they've gained protections from the courts themselves (class-action restrictions, arbitration requirements, etc.). Another example is one vein of extreme anti-regulation dogma that says, on principle, economic powers should not be limited by the will of the majority (I'm not saying all arguments against regulation are problematic, only the principle that the issues shouldn't be decided democratically).

At times there truly is an immediate tradeoff. Daimler-Benz, Google, Hollywood, and others have to deal with this real problem in China and it will affect their bottom lines. But from an historical perspective it's nothing new and is a minor sacrifice. Few of those companies would exist in their current state or enjoy their wealth if not for the massive sacrifices of life and wealth made by prior generations; there are 18-year-olds still at the bottom of the English Channel who never even set foot in France or fired a weapon. What are the corporations and we doing for the next generation? Will we be merely parasites that consume the benefits bestowed on us and pass on less, rather than invest in and expand freedom as our ancestors did? The U.S. Declaration of Independence ends "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" for liberty. It wasn't the opposite: they didn't pledge to give up their liberty for greater fortunes - but that's what Thiel, et al want.

In the long run, it's not a tradeoff. Giving freedom and opportunity to more people makes them more productive; it's a wonderful, mutually-reinforcing phenomenon between democracy and freedom on one hand and prosperity on the other. It has made the democracies the wealthiest, most free countries in the history of the world. It has given hope and liberty to more than a billion people; today's wealthy were yesterday's poor. It's worked throughout the world, from Japan to Latin America to Taiwan to Europe and the US to many more places.

But at times there are immediate tradeoffs and sacrifices that we must decide to make: Will we give up wealth for democracy and freedom? Do we want democracy and freedom (and long-term prosperity), or unbridled economic wealth and power for a nascent aristocracy? It seems like an easy choice to me once you think about it that way.[1]

[0] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

[1] Of course, it's even easier when I frame the question that I answer!