> “Competition is for losers,” writes Peter Thiel, an American venture capitalist, in his book, “Zero to One”. Monopoly is the goal, he says.
Wow!
Wow!
The statement is surprising on its face, but he plays a good devil's advocate. There are plenty of holes to poke in his arguments, so have at it.
1. You're not going to truly release the social value of a monopoly unless you socialize it, either through social control or regulation. Without that, the monopoly will mainly serve to benefit its owners.
2. Monopoly R&D expenditure will likely be less than the excess profit captured by the monopoly's owners, and mainly motivated by potential regulation. IIRC, the main raison d'être for Bell Labs to exist as it did was to convince regulators to not break up AT&T. Without that threat it would have likely been more focused on AT&T's profit motive and less on generalized scientific advancement.
3. Monopolies (socialized or otherwise) will more likely end in stagnation.
I somewhat disagree. There are some monopolies which become more valuable to society the larger they are due to network effects. One example is Google maps. I suspect the more people use maps, the more accurate their live traffic data will be, which gives every other user more accurate information. Marketplaces are another example of network effects benefitting users - the more buyers and sellers in one marketplace, the easier it becomes for them to find one another.
> 2. IIRC, the main raison d'être for Bell Labs to exist as it did was to convince regulators to not break up AT&T
Interesting, I was going to use Bell Labs as an argument in favor of monopolies producing r&d. It seems like they invented everything!
This makes no sense. Being extremely competitive and taking personal pride in being the best makes you a loser? By what logic?
If you want me to elaborate on something that you asked, and nothing something I made up, then ask me about something I said, not something you made up.
It's perfectly fine to be competitive, but this is in the context of someone who said they don't WANT competition, but a monopoly, and that this would somehow make them the "winner". Being just very competitive and taking personal pride in achievements is not what we're talking about.
If everybody played fair and the playing field was level, then winning would mean you're the best. But many people got confused, ignore the uneven playing field, cheat "because everybody does it", and then think winning says anything about them other than that they're needy. They can't "win" that way, and then brag about it, without being "losers" in another way.
When I said I wonder what their parents were like I wasn't being snarky, I meant whether their self-esteem is based on how others estimate their achievements. E.g. were they loved unconditionally, or were they blackmailed and rewarded with pseudo-love?
It seems obvious to me that many people were denied the means to build an inner foundation for themselves, and went from needing to be a certain way to be "loved" by their parents, to needing to be a certain way to be accepted by their peers, to do a certain thing to be considered successful, and so on. Yet a person could own the world without necessarily owning themselves, and not even owning the world can make up for not owning oneself. So many are floating over an abyss they have inside, and the moment they stop moving, consuming and/or subduing, they plummet.
More fortunate people simply have a bedrock of self-esteem, and then ambitions on top of that. They can compete without having to annihilate, they can give credit where it's due, and they build things because they can, not just because their mental floor is lava.