http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/opinion/brooks-the-creative-monopoly.html?pagewanted=print The United States' key to economic recovery is in creative dominance. We need innovators establishing original industries that can be all-American. This is why a commitment to investing in both physical and human capital is integral to our nation. Covering the basics for societal development is what allows for imagination to run wild.
I think I agree. I wish he wouldn't use the term 'monopoly,' though. It might be technically accurate, but the term implies the elimination of competition, rather than simply not having any (yet).
The "create your own market" approach is often referred to as a "Blue Ocean Strategy" by people who are into trendy buzzwords - Google it if you're interested. I don't like trendy buzzwords, but I think (as you pointed out) a distinction is needed.
He is more or less calling for creative dominance. People should not dabble in an existing market, but create their own market. For example, the Seasteading Institute works to develop a commercial market for floating cities. Flibe Energy essentially has its own market for thorium nuclear reactors. Find your niche and run wild.
That's not really going to work for most people, though. Is it? Even if most people could think of something new, they still don't have access to capital in order to make anything of their idea. They have to go to people with capital, and those people are more likely to either bury that idea or steal it.
True. Peter Thiel did not have the capital to create Paypal until he was well established in law. Still, there is no problem with going big or going home.
And so, as we watch, the resources of the world, land, and even parts of the oceans, are claimed as property, until one day,90% of Earth will be "claimed" as property, by about 10% of the population. The other 90% of world population? TOO BAD. DIE NOW, because you are unproductive, have low IQ, and are not worthy of existence. Capitalism 21st Century: The worst interpretation of Darwinian Evolution, the "Survival of the Fittest", combined with the worst interpretation of Adam Smith Capitalism, the "Monopoly", now called the International Corporation. Darwin would be appalled, as would Adam Smith, that their theories have been exaggerated and reformed into a sythesis that is the equivalent of an anti social pathological machine with an ultimate end: As much of the Earth as possible, owned by as few of the population as possible, and ideally, by an Oligarchy of a very select few, or even one.
