4 ms·

> A business that would succeed in a stable environment may not in a volatile one. True, but specifically a good tech business would be one that ought to at le

• JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > a good tech business would be one that ought to at least survive in a volatile and capital-starved environment Good businesses should be able to survive a normal recession. Start-ups aren't good businesses. They may aim to become good businesses. But if their first customer cohorts go bust, or their bank goes under in a country without deposit insurance, or their employees--who have to be on site to do their job--can't get to work because of transit strikes, et cetera, et cetera, they're not going to make it. Irrespective of how prudent they were.
  • fjp 7y ago
    But if they offer an equal or superior product at lower price, they would have a fundamental advantage: people/businesses would be more incentivized to switch to them when money gets tight, when previously it may not have been a priority.
• eqdw 7y ago
  While I agree with the general gist of what you're getting at, I think you're stating it much too strongly. In a sufficiently volatile and capital-starved environment, I think a straight majority of current businesses would be unviable. Stability, safety, and sustainability I think is not given nearly as much emphasis as it should but I wouldn't want to eg. condemn the entire restaurant industry (volatile economy => not a lot of disposable income => nobody can afford restaurants => restaurants go out of business).