|
|
|
|
|
by 4ntonius8lock
2513 days ago
|
|
I'm guessing like most things in the US: investors are looking to consolidate so they can get into monopolistic positions and extract resources from the market once they have it cornered. The risk of legislative intervention into such anti-competitive market manipulations is virtually zero. If they get big enough, next time they steal wages, they won't have to back down. Heck, if they get big enough, they can steal wages, drive the company broke, and then get a bail out to pay the higher ups that are making the decisions that drove the company into the ground in the first place. We then have the gall to blame Adam Smith, who didn't even believe in separation of funding and management (i.e. he didn't believe in joint-stock companies) |
|
As an example, take Uber. The Economist recently asked whether it can ever make money. [1] And events in the months since don't make it any clearer. [2]
I think tech's wave of quasi-monopolies (Google, Facebook, Amazon) gave investors the notion that similarly dominant players could be established in non-tech fields if they were dressed up as technology plays. So we see absurd amounts of cash being poured into things like Uber and WeWork. Unlike the previous players, we also see them going to IPO while they're still losing money.
And sadly, I think you're right about regulatory laxness. Antitrust regulation has been out of fashion for a long time. And if we see it come back, it could well be more an authoritarian political tool than any actual attempt to ensure competitive markets.
[1] https://www.economist.com/business/2019/04/27/can-uber-ever-...
[2] https://www.economist.com/business/2019/04/27/can-uber-ever-...