Competition is the constant agression that keeps your business antifragile Dominating players tend to stifle competition thus become complacent and brittle Monopolies are inherently unstable, unless protected by the law
I think I differ on some of your points: 1. Competition is the enemy of profit. The less competition you have, the more profit. It's like supply/demand. As supply falls, with demand constant, price goes up. Surviving competition is an indicator of skill/anti-fragility.
-
-
2. ONCE dominating players become fragile because of bureaucracy, complacency, and the founders getting them there leaving the firm. Brown-nosing politics playing bureaucrats don't lead firms as well as the founders who survived the competition to become dominating.
-
3. Monopolistic companies can be stable and unstable and law is just one form of protection. Some competitive advantage are more fragile than others, i.e. scale is more fragile than brand or having Bezos as your CEO.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I disagree. It'd be like saying "the less effort you make, the more energy you have". It's true on the short term, but in the long run the more you exercise, the better your shape. Hence the unstability. You need competition low enough to profit but high enough to improve.
-
It depends on who is running the monopolistic company. Some CEOs are content to sit on their dominant position while others take the cash from their successful venture and plow it into new markets and ideas. Ceteris paribus, increased competition means more fragility.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.