Is Competition for Losers?
rugpullindex.com
rugpullindex.com
>For me, it was to swim faster and to compare my fitness. [...] And why not - there's entirely nothing at stake either.
If there's nothing at stake (i.e. your savings account and investors' money), then Peter Thiel's "competition is for losers" is not applicable to your personal swimming benchmarks.
>But I'll say this: "competition is for losers" is an unnecessary broad generalization
But Thiel's advice wasn't about a broad generalization for living life. His context was talking about a startup business.
Though, unfortunately, this is the connection the blog tries to make.
Swimming is competition as sport and that's true for even the professional swimmers.
Blue ocean makes sense if your in business for monetary success and not for the love of competing.
Most of them have very little room at the top. You're likely going to end up spending tons of money and time and not really get anywhere as a professional athlete. Not to mention the risk of injury. I think swimming is pretty safe, but if you look at mountain biking or, gasp, gymnastics, there are competitive sports where you can really damage your body, and your career will be over after just a few years. Then, there's also the issue that working extremely hard to become say, an olympic gymnast, can actually be damaging to a child's mental health (no time to relax and develop socially like the other kids).
So yes, if nothing is at stake, then why not? Go ahead and try to swim faster than your buddies, you'll probably get fitter in the process. But trying to get to the top of a very crowded field, I think you should only do that if you really really enjoy competition for its own sake and you have some kind of a backup plan.
I understand structuring social events as competitions adds drama and a sense of excitement, but as a parent I really wish people would think twice about it. Perhaps it's possible to just gather people with similar interests and have them share tricks and stories, without an aggressive agenda...
Also, competition being anti-social seems like a strange concept. Unless I am only in competition with myself, I do need participation from other parties, and that in itself creates a social environment, for better or for worse.
- Learn to play well with others, even under stress
- Figure out where they can help, and through that, identify their strengths/weaknesses
- Know that they can demand more from themselves, especially under time constraints and can rise to meet those expectations
It's about them seeing things through, be committed to their friends, showing up for themselves and the group.
The drama of losing will happen, probably a lot, but it's OK, because the sun still rises again in the morning and you get a chance again to play and redeem. Such is life.
It is all part of the discourse that sounds good in theory and in fact it is value-driven (it sounds good and it must be good), but empirically it does not come up as solid as expected.
If you're selling a commoditized product, you're in a race to zero profit (firms undercut each other to gain market share until profit is minimal). If you're selling a unique product, you can command much higher margins.
In cities there is competition to be above the rest. Whether in restaurants, art, nightlife, retail, sports, museums, grocery stores, whatever.
In my experience cultural and even mundane experiences and activities are of a higher quality in larger cities because of competition.
Tyler Cowan makes a good case for dining at strip mall restaurants in the suburbs.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/six-rul...
The largest cities are almost entirely void of most chains, as nobody who lives there wants to eat chain food. (There’s usually some chains in the tourist central area, like Times Square in NYC).
The largest cities are almost entirely void of most chains
241 Starbucks in NYC, and they aren't all there to serve locals.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/306896/cities-with-the-l...
Look at the number of other big chains in NYC, like Chick-Fil-A, Burger King, Krispy Kreme, Olive Garden, Buffalo Wild Wings, and so on, and you'll see what I mean.
If you ever visit NYC again, I can provide a long list of amazing local restaurants that will beat anything in suburbs regardless of neighborhood! I've lived in many places, and the idea that suburbs food will beat city food, or that cities are all 'big chains,' feels like a distinctly small-American-city sentiment. It literally couldn't be further from the truth with regards to NYC.
Whatever, no one said that - that's just a straw man.
Do you think there is more interesting and authentic Chinese food in Manhattan or Flushing?
I can provide a long list of amazing local restaurants that will beat anything in suburbs
Ok, how about the best places for jianbing or lagman?
The comment was in response to your comment on Tyler Cowen's argument for eating at strip malls in suburbs.
> Do you think there is more interesting and authentic Chinese food in Manhattan or Flushing?
There's quite fantastic Chinese food in both. It's certainly more expensive in most parts of Manhattan, but the above argument that the expensive parts of New York City is a bunch of large chains is hogwash! There's great, expensive restaurants. Flushing has great, cheaper restaurants.
The crux of my point is that large cities do not end up dominated by large chains. In fact, walking through NYC or London, you'll see way, way, way less chains than driving through the suburbs.
Why are the larger chains better able to absorb the costs? Don't they still have the same rent and labor costs? Besides, smaller towns seem to suffer from chains just as much in my experience.
It feels like a particular problem in the US, though Europe has too many chains for my liking as well.
I wonder what laws/regulations are part of this problem, and how they might be changed if we want more independent shops.
If you've visited large cities and only found mega-corp food chains and no local quality foods, that's 100% for lack of trying.
I grew up in the deep suburbs and currently live in one of the largest cities in the US. The difference in variety when it comes to both supermarkets and reasturants is hugely in favor of the city. Growing up there were three grocery stores within half an hour and they all had basically the same items. If you wanted something unusual you'd have to order it. In the city I can head to the Asian market or one of multiple farmers markets or one of the multiple Co ops around me. There are at least 50 reasturants I can get delivered to my house and while some are large chains or fast food, most are not.
When I visit my friends in the suburbs the options are basically limited to American style Chinese, Pizza, or a large chain like Applebee's.
https://foodispower.org/access-health/food-deserts/
Chicago – More than 500,000 residents (mostly African-American) live in food deserts, and an additional 400,000 live in neighborhoods with a preponderance of fast food restaurants and no grocery stores nearby.
New York City – An estimated 750,000 New York City residents live in food deserts, [27]while about three million people live in places where stores that sell fresh produce are few or far away. [28] Supermarkets throughout New York City have closed down in recent years due to increasing rents and shrinking profit margins, but the disappearance of urban grocery stores has had the most serious impact on low-income communities, especially those that are predominantly African-American (such East/Central Harlem and North/Central Brooklyn).
I don't see how that is confusing.
But there's a flip side to that, which is why monopolies are practically synonymous with rent-seeking. Without competition, companies tend to stagnate and the products are objectively worse. This makes the company vulnerable to disruption and is obviously bad for consumers.
There's definitely a sweet spot: some competition so things keep moving, but enough margin that the companies competing are have enough slack to invest in research and hire the best people etc. Companies don't produce their best work when they are at the razor's edge: accountants are running the show, employees feel the squeeze. You know the deal, Malthus covered it pretty well.
The secret is that any given market is not a one dimensional ramp into commodities competing over price. The world is pretty much infinite dimensional from the perspective of creating product differentiation, spinning off new products etc. If you're looking ahead and the only move you see is cutting prices to beat your competitor, you've trapped yourself.
That's where the analogy to competition breaks down, sports are constrained to be one-dimensional competitions. Markets aren't.
Basically starting a restaurant in Manhattan is a bad business because of extreme competition competing away all of the profits.
You want a business where you have a moat to generate capital you can reinvest in the business. Not to stagnate others, but because it can lead to better outcomes and better businesses.
Another example where competition has lead to bad businesses are airlines. They all pretend they’re different - but they’re basically all competing on race to the bottom pricing and the experience on all of them suck.
If you're trying to start a new company, an airline would probably be a bad idea - unless you're bringing something new to the table that others can't easily compete on (like supersonic jetliners maybe, eg the YC company Boom - though even then I don't think they're planning to run their own airline).
The airlines all pretend they're special and unique, but they're basically commodities offering similarly bad experiences (imo) that aren't very differentiated.
Meanwhile when companies are more dominant, like Google, they constantly point to their tiny competition (Duck Duck Go) and talk about how competitive the space is - the opposite of how airlines behave.
If you're trying to build a startup you want something that leads to a Google like outcome, not a United Airlines like outcome.
At crucial junctures in history, the exact wrong move prevails in so many cases, leading to preventable and sometimes tragic consequences. So you the reader really believe that by maximizing your own pile of coins that society prevails? or, you believe that you should be the alpha primate, and that the decaying and treacherous world around you is for the weak? Meanwhile, this man put Palantir Inc on the USA ? Didnt the USA have 'freedom' in the charter? its hardly worth considering in my mind, this Randian extremism, but here we are, so I type.
I suggest getting off of the addictive habits/substances, let go of Ayn Rand, and evolve instead of amplifying this nonsense. The choice is yours.
When figuring out what ideas are good potential options for startups (particularly high growth startups) - you want to choose one where there's a large need and where you have something special that others can't easily replicate/compete away. That's part of the foundation that makes for a good idea (zero to one is a good and a short read - it's worth just reading it).
Your political spin is assuming too much and clouding your interpretation of what I wrote (imo). I also think you likely have a misunderstanding of what Palantir is and what it does, but that's not something I can really address.
It’s true that competition can be motivating sometimes, and there are lots of great examples of startups beating the competition. Thiel isn’t saying don’t try hard, he’s just saying think hard about picking the race that you’re more likely to win.
- If you're copying or offering relatively the same service/solution as other incumbents, then your startup is a loser (Don't lie to yourself)
- If you want to be a status quo challenger startup but your idea is a copy or similar to another existing provider, then your startup is a loser! (Stop pretending it's your idea but you know you stole from someone else)
- If you don't have an opinion or outlook for a better future; solving real problems; or inventing solutions for problems people/business never knew they had but most appreciate, then your startup is somewhat a loser. (Not everyone should become an entrepreneur, we need a lot more employees!)
Pretty general yes, but the notion is to challenge the creative juices and encourage taking risks. No risk, no reward!
Peter doesn't like "wanna be's" ... Are they a loser by nature for copying ideas, as supposed to original minds? There are a lot "entrepreneurs" with ZERO imagination/creativity, and most constantly wonder why they cannot crack it. So maybe there's some truth to it!
But then again we've seen copycat startups succeed as well!
He's negative about copycat startups because they rarely make enough money to make their investors happy. He likes monopolies with product:market fit because they generally make investors happy.
However, as a founder, what he likes should be waaaay down our list of priorities. Our happiness and definition of success may not match his. In fact it almost certainly won't. Follow our own dreams, not Peter Thiel's.
I like the author's take on his new thing: don't sell the vision and get investment. Instead, just execute and see where that goes. I look forward to seeing where that goes :)
The less competition I had the less bullshit I had to put up with. Just "We want what you supply, how much do you want for it?" and that's it.
You still need something unique to do well usually, though that unique thing doesn’t have to be the idea or space.
There aren't any winners in steady state competition, that is, until your average run of the mill grey squirrel is introduced into regions (markets?) where the existing scatter gatherers didn't have any competition. Then they dominate and drive all the competition to extinction.
Sometimes capital accumulation can let a non-competitive company survive the market entry of a competitor that operates more efficiently in a way that is similar to how a species with a large population might have a few members that can compete effectively. But at the end of the day those fat margins will eventually disappear.
Let's say we rephrase the question along another line:
"Is Cooperation for Losers?"
"Ayn Rand says yes. It's a brutal struggle of all against all for domination and power, and cooperation is only a trick you use to infiltrate and destroy your rivals in the quest for global domination and ultimate power!"
I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of these arguments are really about the fact that humans evolved from primate ancestors whose social structure was based around alpha dominance in small tribal groups, and that's really the motivating force behind a whole lot of people in business and politics. Unconscious drives and so on.
The newer science says that the idea of an alpha is a myth.
I don't think we have have the conceptual tools yet to describe the specific shape of power a being might have, but it is simply a lot more complex than this -- a combination of cooperation and competition and other relationship positions we haven't thought of.