











Whether applied to economies, ideas, systems, or politics — this model describes how something new and transformative can both be born from, ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Audax negotium, dicerem impudens, nisi hoc institutum postea translatum ad philosophos nostros esset. Cum ageremus, inquit, vitae beatum et eundem supremum diem, scribebamus haec. Quod si ita est, sequitur id ipsum, quod te velle video, omnes semper beatos esse sapientes. Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Sed emolumenta communia esse dicuntur, recte autem facta et peccata non habentur communia.
Quare ad ea primum, si videtur; Nosti, credo, illud: Nemo pius est, qui pietatem-; Intellegi quidem, ut propter aliam quampiam rem, verbi gratia propter voluptatem, nos amemus; Fatebuntur Stoici haec omnia dicta esse praeclare, neque eam causam Zenoni desciscendi fuisse. Sed tu istuc dixti bene Latine, parum plane. Mihi quidem Antiochum, quem audis, satis belle videris attendere. Duae sunt enim res quoque, ne tu verba solum putes. Dic in quovis conventu te omnia facere, ne doleas.
Nondum autem explanatum satis, erat, quid maxime natura vellet. In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam? Cupiditates non Epicuri divisione finiebat, sed sua satietate. Itaque haec cum illis est dissensio, cum Peripateticis nulla sane. Quod autem in homine praestantissimum atque optimum est, id deseruit. Istam voluptatem, inquit, Epicurus ignorat?




- Work with the impact of digital disruption accelerating creative destruction.
The accelerated rate of cr ...
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. At multis se probavit. Ne in odium veniam, si amicum destitero tueri. Non enim iam stirpis bonum quaeret, sed animalis. Duo Reges: constructio interrete.
Sapiens autem semper beatus est et est aliquando in dolore; Vulgo enim dicitur: Iucundi acti labores, nec male Euripidesconcludam, si potero, Latine; Quid enim? Quonam, inquit, modo? Vitae autem degendae ratio maxime quidem illis placuit quieta. Quid de Platone aut de Democrito loquar? Egone non intellego, quid sit don Graece, Latine voluptas? Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas? Praeclare hoc quidem. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur.
Semper enim ita adsumit aliquid, ut ea, quae prima dederit, non deserat. Cur iustitia laudatur? Ut id aliis narrare gestiant? Quasi vero, inquit, perpetua oratio rhetorum solum, non etiam philosophorum sit.
Creative Destruction in a free market context assumes that the market drives great practice solutions. Some critics might argue that instead, it drives better sales and profits, which is not always associated with high-quality products and services, or people’s needs being met more effectively.
Another criticism of this model is the contrast with models such as compounding, and the power of marginal gains as opposed to complete destruction and reinvention.
And finally, the model is sometimes used to justify the existence of global tech monopolies. Schumpeter argued that organisations grow to monopolies because they do what they do well - so a true embrace of more purist free-market ideas which I would argue is problematic.
Illinois Railroads.
Joseph Schumpeter, the originator of the term, cited the development of railroads in Illinois as an example of creative destruction. He explained: “The Illinois Central not only meant very good business whilst it was built and whilst new cities were built around it and land was cultivated, but it spelt the death sentence for the [old] agriculture of the West."
The rise of Silicon Valley
This New York Times article notes the popularity of this model to explain current economic trends impacted by digital disruption: “Schumpeter's theory and phraseology have become mainstream today for describing the current era, in which new-economy companies are being created at an astounding rate. No less an establishment figure as Alan Greenspan, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board and a Harvard-trained economist, has been using Schumpeterian economics to explain the remarkable noninflationary expansion in the United States over the past eight years.”
Greenspan went on to outline the impact of key innovations, from the microprocessor, lasers, fibre optics and particularly the role of information technology.
The creative destruction mental model is similar to the concept of disruptive innovation, in the way new approaches can replace and make previous ones obsolete.
Use the following examples of connected and complementary models to weave creative destruction into your broader latticework of mental models. Alternatively, discover your own connections by exploring the category list above.
Connected models:
- Red queen effect: in understanding the perpetual drive to be smart and disrupt.
- Disruptive innovation: in changing the game.
Complementary models:
- Compounding: contrasting, in many ways opposite mental models, that benefit from being contrasted with one another.
- Design thinking and agile methodology: methods to seek out those new disruptive ideas.
- Scientific method: as a methodology to strive towards a greater understanding of the truth, relying on creative destruction of theories in some instances.
- Munger’s latticework: when applied to the development and unlearning of mental models.
Creative Disruption was coined by Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942, deriving it from the work of Karl Marx, who pointed to the destructive nature of progressive social systems which he argued would eventually lead to socialism replacing capitalism.
In his 1942 book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter explained: “the process of industrial mutation that continuously revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.”
It is ironic that this term, now associated with pointing to the benefits and resilience of free-market systems, was originally described as an inherent contradiction within capitalism, that would lead to its downfall.

Oops, That’s Members’ Only!
Fortunately, it only costs US$5/month to Join ModelThinkers and access everything so that you can rapidly discover, learn, and apply the world’s most powerful ideas.
ModelThinkers membership at a glance:






“Yeah, we hate pop ups too. But we wanted to let you know that, with ModelThinkers, we’re making it easier for you to adapt, innovate and create value. We hope you’ll join us and the growing community of ModelThinkers today.”