[HN Gopher] Schumpeter on Strategy (2019)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Schumpeter on Strategy (2019)
        
       Author : Brajeshwar
       Score  : 34 points
       Date   : 2023-12-27 15:19 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (reactionwheel.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (reactionwheel.net)
        
       | 082349872349872 wrote:
       | > _Those that make money, an entrepreneurial profit, do so by
       | breaking the status quo. They innovate. They either get their
       | inputs for less or they sell their outputs for more._
       | 
       | A third possibility: they went all-in on a bet everyone else
       | thought was bad, but happened to pay out.
        
         | plastic-enjoyer wrote:
         | But that only applies for a while, right? Today's big tech
         | companies continue to make profits, but without great
         | innovations. They are mostly iterations where the product is
         | only marginally improved or even made worse.
        
           | classified wrote:
           | They went from product building to rent seeking.
        
             | lo_zamoyski wrote:
             | Product development is not synonymous with providing
             | economic value.
        
           | 082349872349872 wrote:
           | TFA's notion of entrepreneurial returns is in contrast to the
           | innovation-free profit rate
        
         | baxtr wrote:
         | How is this a third option? Input/output is exhaustive by
         | definition.
         | 
         | Your possibility sounds like the overarching theme of "breaking
         | the status quo".
        
           | 082349872349872 wrote:
           | The system is not closed: due to the presence of lots of
           | other peoples' money sloshing around, it is very possible for
           | moonshot entrepreneurs to personally make substantially more
           | than employees/lifestyle entrepreneurs, even (I'd hazard
           | "especially") at times when their underlying business is
           | losing money.
        
       | aj7 wrote:
       | "Most people start businesses simply because they don't like
       | working for someone else."
       | 
       | But they stay in business, long term, for the 'tax advantages.'
       | By that, I mean the numerous ways to pass personal expenses off
       | as business expenses.
        
         | bionsystem wrote:
         | Depending on the country this can be highly risky. In France
         | accountants are very conservative as to what can pass as
         | expenses.
        
         | fritzo wrote:
         | Confirmatory data point here.
        
       | denton-scratch wrote:
       | > 81% of founders have no desire to grow their business
       | 
       | I think that's probably true. I think the bosses of most small
       | businesses are scared of growing bigger than about 10-15
       | employees, because they're terrified of delegating.
        
         | hef19898 wrote:
         | Not terrified, but maybe satisfied with running a stable 10-15
         | people shop? There is no _need_ to grow each and every business
         | into a unicorn.
        
           | noneeeed wrote:
           | I have friends who have done exactly this. They grew a small
           | agency to about 15 people and are happy with it. They enjoy
           | what they do, it's a nice place to work, they make plenty of
           | money from it and have no desire to be rich.
        
             | hef19898 wrote:
             | The mist valuable thing money can buy you is time. If you
             | make enough for a comfortable living, with a good work life
             | balance and great people, _and_ your own gig, I would
             | consider you very rich in deed!
        
         | AlbertCory wrote:
         | > terrified of delegating.
         | 
         | this is an uncharitable description of a rational decision: "I
         | don't want this to be a soulless corporation run by bean
         | counters. I'd rather keep it as a family-run business for my
         | kids."
        
       | porompompero wrote:
       | Schumpeter is great and systematically underrated. Another
       | problem: his insights are often cherry-picked.
        
         | Animats wrote:
         | By him, or by others?
         | 
         | The article says "Interestingly, these are the only strategies
         | to create excess profit that Schumpeter's model allows." The
         | article doesn't mention going into a business with strong
         | network effects and establishing a de-facto monopoly. See
         | Thiel's "Zero to One". Schumpeter was writing in an era when
         | railroads were trying to do that. They hadn't quite succeeded;
         | there were still many small railroads.
         | 
         | The big change has been the development of businesses that
         | scale really, really well, along with the management techniques
         | to run them. The former is well known in Silicon Valley. The
         | latter is less widely realized.
         | 
         | Big companies used to have a huge administrative problem. There
         | were giant corporate headquarters buildings full of people
         | literally pushing paper. "The World is Run on Tracks of Printed
         | Paper" - Moore Business Forms slogan. Railroads had trouble
         | keeping track of their freight cars. Auto companies had trouble
         | keeping track of where their cars were in transit. Plants had
         | to be self-sufficient and carry big inventories. These problems
         | got worse with scale, for combinatoric reasons.
         | 
         | That was the real win of the era of mainframe computing. The
         | problems of bureaucratic scale were gradually overcome. This
         | removed old natural limits on the size of companies. At last,
         | burger chains could be expanded to planetary scale.
         | 
         | With the administrative problems out of the way, any industry
         | which had marketing or supply based network effect began to
         | tend towards a very small number of players. It took a while,
         | but now we're there. Today, the US has two major drug store
         | chains, two major hamburger chains, three big banks...
         | 
         | Schumpeter didn't have examples that to look at. Railroads have
         | a network effect, but that's because they _are_ a network, and
         | they were regulated, or, in many counties, state-owned.
         | Telephone, telegraph, and electric power companies were
         | recognized as natural monopolies, so they were regulated
         | utilities. Perhaps the closest example of his era was The Great
         | Atlantic  & Pacific Tea Company ("A&P"), once the largest
         | grocery chain. They operated grocery stores from 1863 to 2015.
         | But they were not strongly dominant in Schumpeter's day; that
         | came a few decades later.
        
       | petra wrote:
       | I can accept that you need a competitive advantage to have above
       | normal profits.
       | 
       | But that does not mean innovation at VC scale.
       | 
       | It's enough to be a good technician of some sort who'se good at
       | relationship building and doing some successful marketing(a bit
       | of luck helps) and slowly build a list of regular clients and
       | with time you could make a lot of money, well above an hired
       | technician.
        
       | dang wrote:
       | Related:
       | 
       |  _Schumpeter on Strategy (2019)_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30840210 - March 2022 (9
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Schumpeter on Strategy_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18958406 - Jan 2019 (4
       | comments)
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-12-28 23:01 UTC)