3 ms·
> There are less profitable and more profitable industries and companies don’t move out of the less profitable ones. Entering a different market is expensive a
by Keegs 4y ago
> There are less profitable and more profitable industries and companies don’t move out of the less profitable ones.
Entering a different market is expensive and takes a lot of time. It’s also not guaranteed you’ll succeed.
> they’d all be selling crack instead of furniture. Or at least mandating the employees be on it for productivity.
Selling crack is against the law and afaik so is requiring employees to use PEDs (see the parent’s idea of governments deciding what’s out of bounds). The tactics Purdue used to push OxyContin are a good example.
- astrange 4y ago> Entering a different market is expensive and takes a lot of time. It’s also not guaranteed you’ll succeed. That's a strategy risk… > Selling crack is against the law and afaik so is requiring employees to use PEDs (see the parent’s idea of governments deciding what’s out of bounds). and that's a legal risk… …but acceptance of risk is how profits are made and they know it. So basically this is just saying they're single-minded in pursuit of profits except for when they aren't. It doesn't seem to have predictive power. I think a better explanation includes things like how, since most American companies are owned by the same retirement fund managers like Vanguard, their owners aren't necessarily interested in them competing maximally hard. (and yes, Purdue is an example of _actually_ doing this, so are tobacco companies.)