Debt can be neatly understood as leanness going into the negative. Unlike human bodies, orgs can go lean beyond zero into negative weight
-
-
Replying to @vgr
hmm. Wouldn't (shouldn't) lean be measured by the asset side of the balance sheet, not the finance side?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GordonBrianR
.
@GordonBrianR finance is the continuation of engineering by other means1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Debt leverages equity, enabling accumulation of assets now by exploiting future cash flows. Nothing necessarily lean about that.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GordonBrianR @vgr
it's easy to accumulate slack with debt; to loosen the constraints of lean. That's why focus on asset side is better if concerned.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GordonBrianR
pure illusion, you've just traded risk in low-probability scenarios for slack in high-probability scenarios
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
I suspect we might be focused on different thing here. I take lean as an asset-centric conception. An investment heuristic.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GordonBrianR @vgr
to embrace lean is to minimize fixed investments during exploration initiatives - as I understand it at least. Finance is 2nd order.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GordonBrianR
I disagree, but this convo is too complex for Twitter. My latest post is beta of ~25% of my thinking here. Rest 75% simmering.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
which part do you disagree with? My take on lean or the contention that the finance aspect is a 2nd order consideration?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
yup, and understanding of debt leverage in book asset terms rather than messy ground realities. Asset= very leaky abstraction
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.