5 ms·
My main concern with Peter Thiel praising monopolies is that the nuance of the message will get lost - "earning monopoly through radical innovation" - but the c
by lmg643 12y ago
My main concern with Peter Thiel praising monopolies is that the nuance of the message will get lost - "earning monopoly through radical innovation" - but the core message remains - monopoly = profit. People will start to pat themselves on the back for acquiring all their competitors, skewing regulations in their favor, and a variety of other sleazy business tactics. I suspect most large business CEOs already understand that monopoly = profits, so Thiel is just making it respectable to talk about by casting it in the light of innovation.
- thathonkey 12y agoSo the argument is that monopolies are ok so long as they are won fair and square? Umm... ok.
- forthefuture 12y agoThe irony is that any company that is legitimately better than their competitors has no choice but to become a monopoly.
- 001sky 12y agoYes, it's a classic false dichotomy. The options are not (monopoly, competition). A "the neverending competition that cannot be won" is best avoided--there is nothing redeemable about this "pure antithesis" to monoploy to make it more desirable.
- couchand 12y ago...though if the labor market is at all free that should self-correct pretty quickly. Unfortunately we tend to tie things like retirement and health care directly to employment, totally distorting that market.
- wlievens 12y agoYou (Americans) do... we (Europeans) don't, generally.
- cpeterso 12y agoAFAIU, Thiel doesn't say monopolies are good. He says the pursuit of monopolies drives progress: “Monopolies drive progress. The promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate.” http://www.technologyreview.com/review/531491/the-contrarians-guide-to-changing-the-world/ http://www.technologyreview.com/review/531491/the-contrarian...
- sitkack 12y agoThis idea is frankly retarded. I am not saying you have had it. This is directed at You. To say that monopolies drive progress strikes me as an anthropomorphisation of the motivations of innovators. Did AT&T Microsoft and Ford drive progress? Hardly. They existed when progress occurred but to attribute it do them is generous. Most progress is driven by the artists and scientists on the edge, they rarely see the fruits of their labor, the riches are picked up by the second and third waves of adopters. Maybe monopolies refine innovations?
- byEngineer 12y agoFunny you say this. I hate monopolies as the next guy. Reading Thiel's book right now. What he says is that monopolies can have luxury of innovation while in the perfect market conditions it is all about as low margin as possible without cash flying around to spend on extravaganza like innovation. AT&T: telecommunications company that employed Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kerninghan to figure out software to play chess. Dudes created C language and UNIX OS in the process. Which low margin cash-strived company will do extravagant stuff like that for kicks?
- icebraining 12y agoAT&T: telecommunications company that employed Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kerninghan to figure out software to play chess. Dudes created C language and UNIX OS in the process. Much more than that, actually. From Wikipedia: Researchers working at Bell Labs are credited with the development of radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the charge-coupled device (CCD), information theory, the UNIX operating system, the C programming language, S programming language and the C++ programming language. Eight Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories.