Interesting take. Seems legit from an entropy perspective.
Given that most corporations fail eventually no matter what, you might have a point there.
Maybe what I meant was the micro-level, not the macro-level evaluation. It might be easier for a given individual within a large corporation to play the game of 'keep the system running' and do well as compared to playing an active role in a small group of pirates that is building value from scratch which eventually can scale to a significant size.
From my experience this is not true. Once a company has a working businessmodel, a marketshare and predictable annual revenue stream plus some growth it seems the business is nearly bulletproof to an astounding amount of technical ineptitude. As long as the main value proposition of a succesfull product remains intact it's very hard to sink it.
I'm interested in this. Can you formalize your thinking here a bit more?
For instance, do you mean to say that, given the average company making $X net profit per month, it is harder to steer that company to grow to make $(X + Y) per month, than it is to start another company that makes $Y per month, from nothing?
Like sibling comment said, from a data-driven perspective that seems incorrect, but I wonder if your definitions of "value" or "difficulty" have some other nuance.
Large companies have more value than startups, so it takes more time to lose that value. Large companies also have expertise in value preservation and value creation. Startups usually only have expertise in value creation.
I’m not sure I 100% agree with the statement, but it’s an interesting perspective to try from time to time.
I disagree. Not screwing up existing value is way harder than simply creating value out of nothing.