For instance, let's say you have a small circle with a small bump on it. The circle represents current technology, and the bump is a change in technology (i.e. innovation).
Now take a much larger circle that has many small bumps on it. The bumps look tiny in comparison, but in aggregate, they are much larger than the bump from the smaller circle. In fact, at some point, they will be bigger than the old circle, even though it just looks like an un-smoothed circle.
Further, 60 years ago we were coming out of wartime, which meant that many innovations were able to come to market in a short period of time (they had been held up do to wartime limitations like rationing, material shortages, etc.)
For instance, let's say you have a small circle with a small bump on it. The circle represents current technology, and the bump is a change in technology (i.e. innovation).
Now take a much larger circle that has many small bumps on it. The bumps look tiny in comparison, but in aggregate, they are much larger than the bump from the smaller circle. In fact, at some point, they will be bigger than the old circle, even though it just looks like an un-smoothed circle.
Further, 60 years ago we were coming out of wartime, which meant that many innovations were able to come to market in a short period of time (they had been held up do to wartime limitations like rationing, material shortages, etc.)
This is why I think Thiel is wrong.