THE INVERSE CONSEQUENCE. Friends, how prevalent is this situation beyond unintended consequences, by which where one gets the opposite effect than intended. (Of course people are blind to the phenomenon).
Consider the simple case of colonization, where the aim is to take a territory, rule its native population and implant your own as permanent settlers. But in many countries we get the opposite population movement: not only the settlers are now near-completely gone but it is the native populations who became permanent settlers in the conqueror’s home. France took Algeria, hoping for a country to eat cassoulet and instead it is France that is eating couscous, etc., something that would have horrified the planners of the original invasion.
With mergers and acquisitions there was a saying that the acquiring company (agressor) is often taken over by the personnel of the acquired one (I saw it live: Phibro bought Salomon brothers, and Phibro executives were fired, etc.) In finance if you lend to someone you think you will own him but in fact the borrower will end up calling the shots.
I wonder how prevalent this is. Please list your example/anecdote.
via THE INVERSE CONSEQUENCE. Friends, how… – Nassim Nicholas Taleb | Facebook.
An interesting case of inverse consecuence:
At the beginning of XXth century, poor Italians families emigrated from North of Italy to the rich Argentina, while poor Italians from South emigrated to unfriendly North America. After one century their descendants are in a funny situation: Italians in Argentina are poor and have rich relatives in North of Italy, while Italians in North America are rich and have poor relatives in Southern Italy. A case of bad luck and bad choices.