There's important value in both points of view. So Thiel's point is that competitive businesses, at best, lead to thin margins. Startups should avoid competitio

There's important value in both points of view. So Thiel's point is that competitive businesses, at best, lead to thin margins. Startups should avoid competition, go into a new space, build a moat and enjoy fat margins. 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.