3 ms·
> To paraphrase Peter Thiel, new technology is probably so fertile and productive simply because there are so few rules. It’s essentially illegal for you to bui
by jeremysalwen 6y ago
> To paraphrase Peter Thiel, new technology is probably so fertile and productive simply because there are so few rules. It’s essentially illegal for you to build anything physical these days from a toothbrush (FDA regulates that) to a skyscraper, but there’s zero restriction on creating a website. Hence, that’s where all the value is today.
It's hard for me to believe that "number of rules" is the main determiner of how much value is created. Wouldn't that make failed states the most economically productive places? Where are all the innovative toothbrush designs coming out of Somalia that the FDA is suppressing? Why isn't California (the most regulated state in the country) the source of the least innovation?
Do we really need an explanation for why new technology is so productive? Maybe because new technology allows you to do new things?
- Veedrac 6y agoLeading innovation also requires capital, high-functioning trade, education, infrastructure, easy access to funding, etc. It's powered by a self-reinforcing cycle of investments, of which money is only a part. It's totally legitimate to ask whether the evidence supports the idea of overregulation slowing progress, but I don't think your examples are the right questions to ask.
- ibeckermayer 6y agoA state of violent anarchy doesn’t have “less rules” than a nation state. In such a state, there exists a de facto “rule of the jungle” that’s far more restrictive and subject to arbitrary change
- Proven 6y ago> A state of violent anarchy Where does Thiel advocate that?