3 ms·
Mark does a lot of that. First, on being an 'entrepreneur', the US is awash, by the millions, in successful entrepreneurs, with only a small fraction with an M
by graycat 13y ago
Mark does a lot of that.
First, on being an 'entrepreneur',
the US is awash, by the millions,
in successful entrepreneurs, with
only a small fraction with an MBA
or knowing what BizDev is. E.g.,
once late on a Thursday I
needed an electrician, plugged in
my emergency electric generator,
very much
wanted to get the work done on Friday
and not have to wait until Monday, Tuesday,
etc., stayed
up nearly until dawn on Friday getting phone
numbers of local electricians and
leaving messages, got back only a
few calls, one, just after dawn
just leaving to play golf,
with a reference to
an electrician who lived a few
streets over but didn't have his
name in any place easy to find, called
him, got him, and got the work done.
That electrician was actually doing
okay as an entrepreneur -- staying
busy enough, nice house, wife at home,
truck, assistant, and essentially none
of the problems Suster described.
The situation is similar for millions
of Main Street entrepreneurs all
across the US.
If an information technology entrepreneur
can do better, okay, but mostly he shouldn't
have to do worse.
Second,
Suster, in his list of what it takes to
be a successful entrepreneur, leaves out
some things that, when left out, can
explain why the items on his list
are so ugly.
An example is from WWII: The Allies
won against Rommel in North Africa.
From the attributes in Suster's list?
Maybe in part, but Suster left out
a crucial point: Something especially
effective.
What was that against Rommel? Sure,
most of Rommel's supplies went to the
bottom of the Mediterranean. Why?
Because the English, maybe with Turing,
broke a German code so that the Allies
knew when the German supply ships were
headed for Rommel. The Allies were
so careful with the information that
they didn't just attack the ships and,
instead, before attacking the ship
made sure to fly a plane
over the ship to let the German's
think that reconnaissance had
detected the ship and not something
else. Eventually Rommel was convinced that
there was a security leak in the
Italians.
There were other WWII examples, especially
the atomic bomb.
Thankfully for US national security,
the US DoD has, now for 70+ years,
been the unique, world class, grand
champion of getting some things that
are "especially effective" --
GPS, stealth, reconnaissance
satellites, the SR-71, etc. What
Suster concentrates on has feet
locked into concrete making sure
not to do anything "especially effective"
as in those examples.
Suster is making a fundamental mistake:
He is looking for things that are
exceptionally good but trying to get
such things mostly just via ordinary
'true-grit' and without concentrating
on things that are "especially effective".