PG radically underestimates the continuing importance of institutions in the modern world, which is understandable given how and with whom he spends his days. The public sector is huge and largely old fashioned heirarchical/institutional. What is the Fortune 500, if not a big list of institutions.
Read the CV of any new-minted corporate CEO almost without fail you'll find that before leaping into the C-suite they first laboured for 15 years in one big institution, building credibility and experience.
Big law firms, big financial firms, the military, academia, on and on it goes, large institutions within which career advancement depends on finding ones way through the institutional culture and comporting oneself to it, in greater and lesser ways.
The key irony is that the empowerment of ambitious individuals that he praises is only possible in an institutional framework that makes it possible. That just allows you to sell your homebrew computer, for example. And there are plenty of people who, once they have become powerful by climbing those ladders, would have no qualms about pulling them up. So pg's analysis works at an individual level, but it's not great guidance for what society should do.
> The key irony is that the empowerment of ambitious individuals that he praises is only possible in an institutional framework that makes it possible.
That's the pretty consistent blindspot I've found in people who strongly promote that view - they are almost always blind to the institutions that are required to support someone "being independent".
Read the CV of any new-minted corporate CEO almost without fail you'll find that before leaping into the C-suite they first laboured for 15 years in one big institution, building credibility and experience.
Big law firms, big financial firms, the military, academia, on and on it goes, large institutions within which career advancement depends on finding ones way through the institutional culture and comporting oneself to it, in greater and lesser ways.