18年马斯克还是比较得意的时候，股价并没有19年的暴跌，当然也没有现在的暴涨，当时私下特斯拉和苹果甚至有磋商并购，当然因为某人作梗不了了之。这事之后就爆发了巴菲特和马斯克的骂战，下文是相关的描述，各位看的时候注意一点，就是战略管理理论最新的发展，如果能看完之后再找些资料读读（我标颜色的人和书），估计收获会更大
昨天承诺的翻译慢慢来，先看这篇，文末最后有彩蛋
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
下文不会逐句翻译，挑重点翻译：
When Tesla CEO Elon Musk said that “moats are lame” during the company’s earnings call last week, he was calling out Warren Buffett, the chair of Berkshire Hathaway, who uses “moat” to describe barriers to imitation that stave off competition. “If your only defense against invading armies is a moat, you will not last long,” Musk continued. “What matters is the pace of innovation — that is the fundamental determinant of competitiveness.” In response, Buffett defended the idea of moats at Berkshire Hathaway’s shareholder meeting, which prompted satirical tweets from Musk.
特斯拉的CEO Elon Musk最近关于“护城河”跟巴菲特打起了口水战，认为决定竞争力的最基本的要素是创新的步伐，
而巴菲特认为，随着近些年的科技进步，确实有越来越多的护城河变得脆弱，更容易受到入侵，但他仍然相信护城河这个概念很重要，并且应该持续的强化护城河。
Nothing about this debate is new, except maybe the tweeting. As entertaining as it is to watch these two billionaires argue in public, their different perspectives are near-perfect expressions of the two most influential strategy ideas of the past half-century.
Buffett’s notion of moats that prevent competition is nearly as old as the field of strategy itself. Much of the pioneering work in that discipline was concerned with identifying which industries and which positions within an industry give companies an advantage by making them hard to copy. Michael Porter’s 1979 HBR article on the five forces that shape strategy offered companies a framework for thinking through those positions, and his 1996 article “What Is Strategy?” — which advised them to stake out a sustainable position based on a unique advantage — codified it. (His advice in a nutshell: Build a moat.)
马斯克和巴菲特之争其实有关两个学术流派之争，Michael Porter 于 1979年在哈佛商业评论杂志上发表了一篇论文，这篇著名的论文就是关于企业竞争力分析的五力模型 ，然后在1996 年又发表了一篇名为 “What Is Strategy?” 的论文— 论文建议企业构筑护城河(His advice in a nutshell: Build a moat.)
However, as early as the 1980s, strategy theorists began to warn that competitive advantage wasn’t static — that today’s advantage may not be sufficient tomorrow. “For any company in any industry, the key is not to get stuck with a single simple notion of its source of advantage,” George Stalk Jr. of BCG wrote in HBR in 1988. “The best competitors, the most successful ones, know how to keep moving and always stay on the cutting edge.” In fact, he continued, competition is so dynamic that speed is a critical strategic weapon.
然而上个世纪八十年代很多战略学大师提出警告，竞争优势并非静态，今天的优势不一定是明天的护城河，波士顿咨询公司的George Stalk Jr. 就在1988年在哈佛商业评论撰文指出，优秀的竞争者哪些最成功的企业知道如何不断的加快创新的步伐保持自己的领先地位。实际上，竞争力其实是一个非常动态的概念，反应速度是其中一个非常关键的战略武器。
By the 1990s “dynamic capabilities” were a common focus within strategy. The idea, as Pankaj Ghemawat describes in his history of the field, was that a company’s capabilities, not just its assets, could form a sustainable advantage. This seems to describe Musk’s view of strategy, that Tesla’s strength comes from its capacity to innovate, rather than from its assets or any particular niche in the automotive market. (Musk’s decision to open up some Tesla patents reflects his view that capabilities, not assets, are the company’s competitive advantage.)
到了九十年代动态能力（dynamic capabilities） 已经是战略另外一个广为关注的焦点. 这一概念的倡导者 Pankaj Ghemawat 认为企业的 这种能力而非资产构成了一种可持续的领先优势，从这个角度来看，马斯克的观点是对的
Perhaps the strategist Musk most sounds like is Columbia’s Rita Gunther McGrath, who in 2013 wrote a book titled The End of Competitive Advantage. McGrath put forward two main ideas: First, companies should give up on the idea of sustainable competitive advantage and admit that any advantage is transient. Second, strategy and innovation are best thought of in conjunction. “The assumption of sustainable advantage creates a bias toward stability that can be deadly,” she writes. Musk couldn’t have tweeted it better.
哥伦比亚大学商学院的Rita Gunther McGrath在2013年写了一本书The End of Competitive Advantage，书中提出了两个主要观点：其中之一是企业应该放弃可持续竞争力（sustainable competitive advantage ）的观点，承认任何优势都是短暂的；
我特地去看了下她的推特，发觉她对所谓护城河的批评还蛮激烈的
Neither side of this debate is likely to be proven definitively right anytime soon. However, even in dynamic, technology-driven industries like social media, moats remain a powerful force. Consider Facebook’s competition with Snap. The latter argues that its capabilities — its ability to deliver new, innovative products — gives it an edge over its larger rival. So far, Facebook’s scale and network effects — a modern moat — seem to be the better bet.
文章开始提护城河辩护，比如Facebook，目前看起来规模效应和网络效应，这种现代护城河也不错。
But businesses aren’t the only ones weighing the power of moats to deliver stable profits. Musk’s most controversial claim last week was, “Saying you like ‘moats’ is just a nice way of saying you like oligopolies.” Policy makers are starting to worry about the outsize profits generated by a small number of “superstar” companies, and many of them agree with Musk that those profits are due to a dearth of competition. More than a few analysts have suggested breaking up Facebook, for instance, or at least limiting its ability to swallow up smaller competitors.
与其说护城河不如说垄断，这句话其实更准。这些年天朝垄断越来越多了，大家慢慢会体会到垄断对生活的影响。
As for the billionaires, not only does their argument bring two schools of strategic thinking to life, but it also proves (for the umpteenth time) that John Maynard Keynes had a point when he said, “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” In this case, though, Michael Porter and his peers are hardly defunct. On the contrary, their intellectual influence is alive and well.
这篇文章我不太想做点评，对立双方的观点都很明确，也很有价值，文章里面列举的书籍和论文应该是更有价值的东西，值得找来阅读
附注：
原文：A 40-Year Debate Over Corporate Strategy Gets Revived by Elon Musk and Warren Buffett
链接：https://hbr.org/2018/05/a-40-year-debate-over-corporate-strategy-gets-revived-by-elon-musk-and-warren-buffett
联系客服
