Every founder is taught to love competition. Peter Thiel thinks that's exactly backwards.
His argument starts with a distinction most people blur: capitalism and competition are not synonyms - they're opposites. A capitalist accumulates capital. A world of perfect competition is a world where all the profit is competed away. So if your business is locked in a knife-fight with ten others doing the same thing, you're not being a good capitalist - you're being a bad one. Want to compete like crazy? Open a restaurant in Chicago.
What you actually want is monopoly - a company so differentiated it isn't really competing at all. Google has had no serious rival in search since it buried Yahoo and Microsoft around 2002, and it has thrown off enormous cash flows ever since. That's the prize: build something one of a kind, then keep the profits instead of bleeding them into a price war.
Here's the part that makes monopoly invisible. The companies that have one lie about it; the companies that don't lie about it too. Google never says "we own 66% of search." It says it's a "technology company" competing with Apple, Facebook, the car makers in Detroit - anyone, everyone - so the monopoly disappears into a giant imaginary market. Meanwhile the doomed Chicago restaurant tells investors it's the only British-Nepalese fusion spot downtown, inventing a tiny fake monopoly so someone will fund it. Both distort the same variable. So nobody talks about the thing that actually matters.
Thiel's sharpest line - the one the Wall Street Journal ran as "competition is for losers" - flips our instincts. We think losers are the people who can't compete: slow on the swim team, test scores too low for the right university. So the idea that competition itself is the trap feels insane. But watch what it does to people. He tells the story of his own twenties: yearbook prediction he'd make Stanford, then Stanford, then Stanford Law, then a white-shoe Wall Street firm - "a place where from the outside everybody was trying to get in, and from the inside everybody was trying to get out." When he left after seven months and three days, a colleague said it was reassuring; he hadn't realised it was possible to escape from Alcatraz. All you had to do was walk out the front door. But people couldn't, because their identity was wired into the contests they'd won and the people they'd beaten.
That's the hidden cost of competing ferociously: you get better at the thing you're fighting over, and you lose sight of whether it was worth fighting over at all. It's why so many of the best startups are run by people with a mild streak of Asperger's - and Thiel says we should read that as an indictment of everyone else. What does it say about a society when the socially well-adapted get talked out of every original idea before it's fully formed, because someone glanced at them funny? Harvard Business School is the case study: take extroverts with no strong convictions, marinate them together for two years, and they all rush the last wave - Michael Milken in '89, the dot-com top in '99, housing and private equity in '07. Imitation is wired deep; in Shakespeare's day "ape" already meant both the animal and to copy. It builds language and culture, and it also builds bubbles, manias, and crowds stampeding through one tiny door while a secret gate sits open around the corner.
Find the secret gate. Which leads to Thiel's second claim: there are still many secrets left. He splits the world into conventions (truths everyone knows), mysteries (truths no one can crack), and in between, secrets - hard, but findable if you do the work. Most people quietly believe the secrets are gone. They're wrong. Geography and basic chemistry are mapped out, sure. But IT has been minting secrets for forty years and shows no sign of stopping, and biotech, space, and the whole world of atoms are wildly underexplored. PayPal's secret was simply combining email with money - obvious in hindsight, invisible until they did it, and worth racing to build before anyone caught on. The cone of progress has been pointed too narrowly at bits. It should widen back out to atoms.
His third idea is the one people get most wrong: globalization and technology are not the same thing. Globalization is horizontal - copying what works, going from one to n. China's next twenty years are mostly that: copy the West, skip a few steps, get richer. Technology is vertical - doing something new, going from zero to one. The nineteenth century had both. After 1914, globalization went into reverse but technology raced ahead. Since Kissinger went to China in 1971, we've had the opposite - furious globalization, sluggish tech outside computers.
And that shift poisoned our language. In the 1950s we spoke of the first world and the third world - a technology distinction. Now we say "developed" and "developing," a globalization distinction that quietly assumes the rich world is finished. Call yourself "developed" and you've conceded that nothing new will be built, that the next generation should expect less than the last, that the future is stagnation managed politely. Thiel refuses the label. His closing question is the one worth stealing: how do we go about developing the developed world?
No comments:
Post a Comment