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.
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.