You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on What are "the really good ideas" that Peter Thiel says are too dangerous to mention? - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: James_Miller 12 April 2015 09:07PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (78)

Comments (78)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: knb 13 April 2015 05:20:07AM *  7 points [-]
  1. Notice how Thiel mentions his idea about the importance of monopoly right before he alludes to something edgier. That's a bit odd, as talking about monopoly as a goal isn't very edgy at all.
  2. Thiel is a libertarian. Libertarians often complain that government is able to misbehave because it is monopolistic.
  3. Remember that Thiel is a known supporter of Seasteading--he initially funded Patri Friedman's Seasteading Institute.
  4. Thiel has also been known to criticize democracy.
  5. Thiel is a known Straussian.

My guess would be that Thiel's edgy idea has to do with something like Charter Cities (often criticized as a form of colonialism/imperialism) or new country projects.

In a totally different direction, I've long wondered whether NASA might be suppressing promising designs for advanced propulsion systems fearing their potential for extremely risky weaponization.

I doubt Thiel is thinking of this in particular however.

EDIT: Since some people below seem confused, I'm not saying I think think it is likely that NASA is really suppressing anything, I'm just saying that I have wondered about it in the past.

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 April 2015 12:19:52PM 1 point [-]

Notice how Thiel mentions his idea about the importance of monopoly right before he alludes to something edgier. That's a bit odd, as talking about monopoly as a goal isn't very edgy at all.

Talking about monopoly can motivate a government to come and break up a business. That makes it risky for someone in a position like Thiels.

Comment author: knb 14 April 2015 12:48:32AM 1 point [-]

Yes, I agree that it can be risky. But he used the word "edgy" which has a different connotation, implying it would be perceived as extreme or socially unacceptable.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 13 April 2015 12:48:10PM 1 point [-]

Isnt it obvious that all companies wish they were monopolies? Since when is that edgy?

Comment author: Salemicus 13 April 2015 01:39:15PM 2 points [-]

Well, you can read his views on monopoly here. I would say some of the following is edgy, in that he's saying that (at least temporary) monopolies can be socially efficient (not just that the companies "want" to be monopolies):

Monopoly might net incentivize innovation. If a company creates something dramatically better than the next best thing, where’s the harm in allowing it to price it higher than its marginal cost of production? The delta is the creators’ reward for creating the new thing. Monopolistic firms can also conduct better long-term planning and take on deeper project financing, since there’s a sense of durability that wouldn’t exist in perfect competition where profits are zero...

Perfect competition might also seem to make sense because it’s economically efficient in a static world... The deeper criticism of perfect competition, though, is that it is irrelevant in a dynamic world. If there is no equilibrium—if things are constantly moving around—you can capture some of the value you create. Under perfect competition, you can’t. Perfect competition thus preempts the question of value; you get to compete hard, but you can never gain anything for all your struggle. Perversely, the more intense the competition, the less likely you’ll be able to capture any value at all.

But what's "edgy" and what's "mainstream" is a matter of perspective. Thiel is influenced by Austrian economics, and this sounds like something out of Schumpeter, or maybe Hayek. To someone familiar with those ideas and concepts, this is hardly startling insight, but many people really do have the prejudice that all markets should be perfectly competitive at all times.

Comment author: ChristianKl 13 April 2015 02:48:13PM 0 points [-]

If you think what Thiel saying is simply obvious then you likely haven't understood the main point.

Companies frequently do make moves to compete with another company. According to Thiel that happens too often. People try to be the best at the latest trend instead of focusing their efforts into an area where nobody else spends their efforts.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit