Debt can be neatly understood as leanness going into the negative. Unlike human bodies, orgs can go lean beyond zero into negative weight
Conversation
Replying to
hmm. Wouldn't (shouldn't) lean be measured by the asset side of the balance sheet, not the finance side?
1
Replying to
1
1
3
Replying to
Debt leverages equity, enabling accumulation of assets now by exploiting future cash flows. Nothing necessarily lean about that.
2
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
Replying to
pure illusion, you've just traded risk in low-probability scenarios for slack in high-probability scenarios
1
Replying to
I suspect we might be focused on different thing here. I take lean as an asset-centric conception. An investment heuristic.
1
to embrace lean is to minimize fixed investments during exploration initiatives - as I understand it at least. Finance is 2nd order.
1
Replying to
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
1
Replying to
which part do you disagree with? My take on lean or the contention that the finance aspect is a 2nd order consideration?
2
1
Replying to
uncertainty (knightian or not) = not having the information. Ambiguity=not having decided what it means to you. Roughly.
Replying to
assuming one doesn't assume that the info actually exists at time of the decision, I'm ok with that-ambiguity being action conditional.
1
