> does it mean that if you sell something people actually want, literally nothing else matters about your intelligence, education, character, background, or anything at all

You got it. As always, it's the gross margins. Cocaine has higher gross margins than most prescription drugs, which in and of themselves are almost pure margin -- nevermind that, the market demand for it is broad and deep globally. Cartel operators aren't dumb. On the contrary, they show much of the unsavory, warlord like aspects of doing many kinds of business where there are zero-sum dynamics like this -- they just don't even try and hide it.

The criminals are smarter than you're giving them credit for. I'm sure having cash flow helps but then you need to be smart enough to be the person who can co-opt that cash flow and put the organisational structure in place to hold onto it. Modern day criminal organisations are basically multi-national conglomerates.

The underground market has one thing legitimate business doesn't have: product that sells itself.

Take a lesson.

Make your product and customer service so good that people can't say no, even if they want to.

See: Google Search and Mail, Facebook, TikTok, other spyware

> does it mean that if you sell something people actually want, literally nothing else matters about your intelligence, education, character, background, or anything at all.

Yes, although I think more specifically s/want/are addicted to/. See also: Saudi Aramco and Facebook.

> What I'm beginning to think is that the "smarter," people are in a company, the less anyone will want their product.

Do you not think Apple and Google are composed of very smart people? Tesla and SpaceX don't make the cut?

Google still seems to be riding on their ad business. Their other products are very hit and miss. So yes, I think Google is a great example here.

I'd posit Apple, Google and Tesla used growth and revenue to hire intellectual people, where we can see everywhere else that the majority of growth and PMF itself is independent of the intellectualism of the employees. It's a loose correlation. It may beg the question in regard to what smart/intelligent/intellectual might mean, but financial success and intellectualism certainly seem inversely correlated, with criminal businesses being the most polarized example.

Theres a saying in business 'sales cure all' meaning that no matter what else is going on, having enough/more sales is an answer to the problem

Sales is also all about creating emotion in the buyer. For drugs, that emotion is present without a salesman having to do anything.

It's also worth noting that the intersection of "capable enough to build that sort of company" and "willing to go the criminal route" is small enough to limit the potential competition.

Point of order to mods on this, is "check your privilege," within the realm of civil discourse? It seems unnecessarily provocative. However, if it is fair game, my response would be "check your reading comprehension," as the further implication of my comment is that societies are locking up their most entrepreneurial and productive members for creating too much value. Using the privilege dog whistle is just cheap intimidation. I'm upvoting this because sweeping it away with downvotes doesn't do it justice.

> as the further implication of my comment is that societies are locking up their most entrepreneurial and productive members for creating too much value.

Strange, right? People WANT to do these drugs, there are plenty of dangerous LEGAL drugs, yet the state is obsessed with them. How much do we spend a year to arrest and incarcerate these people? How much money could we be making my bringing these products out of the black market and into the light?

There is a strong case to be made that the "war on drugs" is less about "locking up dangerous criminals", and more about targeting anti-war, civil rights, and pro-labor movements. Nixon even outright said so.[0]

It is a potent weapon. Lots and lots of people do drugs. All the police need to do is trump up an excuse about "smelling weed", plant a drug[1], and BOOM. Police man meets his quota for arrests, the prison system gets a new worker they can pay $0.50/hr, and one less potential activist on the street.

0: https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...

1: It DOES happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z6RVGnoXeI

> the further implication of my comment is that societies are locking up their most entrepreneurial and productive members for creating too much value

This view seems flawed to me: "creating value" for the drug dealer by selling cut and fentanyl laced "heroin" is definitely not creating value for society. That said, there is no denying the entrepreneurial aspects of drug dealing.

One is certainly worse, but adtech isn't exactly creating social value either.

> "You can succeed with a crew of violent, drug addicted idiots whose only reliable characteristic is short term thinking, and who spend half their time in prison if you have product market fit"

My comment stands. And further, drugs don't sell themselves, a lot of good hard work and smarts goes into it. It's unfortunately the only easy avenue for those without an education and steady home life.