3 ms·
Nothing wrong with inhibiting growth in return for long term stability. Does it matter if your competition is more daring—if they aren't going to last very long
by simondotau 5y ago
Nothing wrong with inhibiting growth in return for long term stability. Does it matter if your competition is more daring—if they aren't going to last very long? If anything, they might serve as a useful distraction.
- hervature 5y agoYes, we are seeing precisely this in action. The short term guided organization has gone down and the long term stable strategy remains uncaught and now has one less competitor.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> Nothing wrong with inhibiting growth in return for long term stability For long-term plans to pay off, they must survive a series of short terms. Criminal gangs and dictators don’t ignore the long term because they’re stupid. They ignore them because they must. A drug gang practicing classical tradecraft would be decimated by one coördinating electronically. The latter will be caught faster. But a series of short-term motivated actors is the equilibrium state of illicit and physical trading systems.
- simondotau 5y agoI can't help but imagine that what you're describing are the criminal gangs we know about; the ones which are well documented. If there are criminal gangs which we don't know about, that aren’t well documented, perhaps they're better at maintaining long term stability.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dolmen 5y agoCriminal gangs that authorities don't know about are the ones that don't do significant activities. Any criminal activities needs customers and so communicate about its activities.
- gonzo41 5y agoYour thinking like a lifestyle business criminal enterprise when you should be thinking like a hungry startup. If you go slow and steady someone will try and eat your lunch. Big criminal enterprises have all the same scaling issues that regular companies do.