Globalization: The Graveyard of Companies
Think of a stock chart—imagine it spiking up in a short period of time. That typically indicates something new is happening. On the other hand, if the chart rises gradually, like a positive earnings drift, it suggests a longer term absorption of new information.
Memetic copying.
Agreed?
Peter Thiel’s core idea in Zero to One is that progress can come in two fundamentally different forms:
1. Horizontal (or “1 to n”) Progress
- This is about copying, scaling, or replicating something that already exists.
- In Thiel’s terminology, going from “1 to n” means taking something familiar and spreading it more widely—think of globalization, where an existing process, product, or idea is simply rolled out to new locations or bigger markets.
2. Vertical (or “0 to 1”) Progress
- This is about doing something entirely new.
- In Thiel’s view, going from “0 to 1” is true technological innovation: it transforms what’s possible rather than merely extending what’s already known.
- Inventing a novel product, method, or category counts as vertical progress because it creates a breakthrough rather than an expansion of the status quo.
The table visually represents these two axes:
SLOW
- The horizontal axis (from “1 → n”) symbolizes the incremental or globalization aspect, where existing technologies or ideas are spread more broadly
FAST
- The **vertical axis** (from “0 → 1”) symbolizes the technology (or innovative) component, moving from nothing to something fundamentally new.
In Thiel’s argument:
- 1 to n progress is important but does not fundamentally change our trajectory.
- 0 to 1 progress is uniquely valuable because it opens up completely new possibilities—what he calls “singular creation.”
So, the chart visually plots how much of the world’s progress is driven by horizontal (scaling up) versus vertical (true innovation).
When we consider the trade war and the bullish speculation amid the ongoing correction or bear market, the notion that the President of the United States (POTUS) will change his mind, or that reciprocal tariffs can be absorbed, is simply a waste of time concerning where America needs to be and is heading.
A trade war is desirable because this is a question and a battle for new technology - like AI, more so than about globalization. The perks and benefits of globalization—‘cheap’—cannot be the means to the ends.
In essence, POTUS’s comments that the globalists are pushing the market down literally make sense.
But let me add something to this equation.
When you consider all the companies that have significantly expanded their value chains through globalization, how much shareholder value have they created post, say, COVID or 2022/23.
I have a thesis: globalization has become the place where companies go to die— in terms of new technology, but in progressing through globalization metrics like a slower expansion in revenue and margins etc, as exemplified by Tim Cook’s leadership at Apple.
When I consider brands like Crocs and Nike, I question their presence in new product categories. Are they truly innovating, or merely showcasing their ability to capitalize on globalization?
Perhaps globalization leads to brand degradation over time?