|
|
|
|
|
|
by amelius
2769 days ago
|
|
|
> You seem to be declaring all outside capital investment to be unfair Let's take the Uber Eats example. You think that restaurants owe Uber money for simply being present on their platform (necessary for survival these days for restaurant owners). But Uber doesn't owe restaurants anything? It's not investments that are the problem. It's the way whole professions are "enslaved" by investors who simply make a pile of money, scale things up and build a portal, which then becomes the new market leader. (Of course, if you keep thinking inside the box of the free-market, then you will think this is all ok, but that is not the point). |
|
|
Uber Eats provides value to (at least some) eaters, who therefore use it to decide which restaurants to patronize. (I can't tell you why they do so; I don't use it myself, and I don't understand why anyone would want to.) The restaurants then have to be part of Uber Eats (at a cost), or to miss out on those customers who use Uber Eats. If Uber Eats charges more than it's worth, then the restaurants won't sign up.
> It's not investments that are the problem. It's the way whole professions are "enslaved" by investors who simply make a pile of money, scale things up and build a portal, which then becomes the new market leader.
You don't become a market leader by having a lot of money and building a portal. You do it by providing something that people want enough for them to use your portal. Otherwise you get ignored.
> (Of course, if you keep thinking inside the box of the free-market, then you will think this is all ok, but that is not the point).
I think my box matches the reality of the world more than your box does. Maybe you need to think outside of your box a bit too...