3 ms·

I think you are arguing from a social/holistic point of view.Yes with more competition society benefits as a whole and we get better products since the bar is s

I think you are arguing from a social/holistic point of view.Yes with more competition society benefits as a whole and we get better products since the bar is set higher. If you are arguing from the point of view of huge companies like IBM or Apple then Yes - being in a more competitive market makes sense as larger markets are inherently competitive. But from the point of view someone without money,resources and who wants to start a business from scratch, it seems obvious to me that avoiding competition is a good strategy. For example, read the story about competing pizza shops in Manhattan.Although they work hard and are doing their best, they aren't making much money. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3779423 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3779423

leot 14y ago
Of course monopolies are "good" for those who benefit from them. This much is a truism. Thiel says entrepreneurs should seek out areas areas in which there will be minimal competition. This, too, is not exactly earth shattering. The issue is that Thiel appears to be trying to make an even stronger claim; that monopolies are intrinsically good, and might even be necessary for progress; that "no one makes any money" in markets where there's too much competition; that one has failed as an entrepreneur if one doesn't quickly make enough money to retire on. It's this latter claim, and other similarly strong ones that Thiel makes, that don't stand up to objective critical scrutiny.