1. How does David Brooks define “creative monopoly”?
Brooks defines “creative monopoly” in the article as , “He’s talking about doing something so creative that you establish a distinct market, niche and identity.”
2. According to the article, is competition a good thing? Does it come with costs? Cite an example.
Competition is not sided as good or bad, but the way people try to compete against each other is not beneficial. “Everybody worries about American competitiveness.” “Competition has trumped value-creation. In this and other ways, the competitive arena undermines innovation.” For example, about candidates entering politics “They and their staff spend all their time focusing on beating the other guy. They hone the skills of one-ups manship. They get engulfed in a tit-for-tat competition to win the news cycle. Instead of being new and authentic, they become artificial mirror opposites of their opponents.” Brooks also talks about people referring to competition in sports or war metaphors.
3. List the skills to be competitive.
“We live in a culture that nurtures competitive skills. And they are necessary: discipline, rigor and reliability.”
4. List the skills to become a creative monopolist.
“But it’s probably a good idea to try to supplement them with the skills of the creative monopolist: alertness, independence and the ability to reclaim forgotten traditions.”
5. Do you agree with the lists above? What would you add?
I agree with the lists above that state the skills that allow you to be competitive and a creative monopolist. I would also add passion (or the willingness from your heart do to something) to this list. I think this is important because without it, the person wouldn’t want to enforce discipline or alertness.