|
|
|
|
|
|
by wpietri
2513 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. The valuation of quite a number of hot companies doesn't make any sense unless they can extract oligopoly rents. 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-... |
|
|
I think for there to be political will to redistribute the power that concentrates in monopolies, there needs to be a clear rallying cry.
When you look at the trust busters of the 20th and 19th century, they had a clear rallying cry from the masses: improve working conditions.
I wonder if with automation taking over, the new rallying cry will be UBI? I mean, to pay for such a thing, you need to redistribute social wealth, which is now concentrating in monopolies.
People notice the concentration of money, and the lack in other parts, more than the particulars of how markets work. Then the rallying cry brings about change in unexpected ways, maybe? I don't know, but I'm hopeful.
As to getting downvoted, I'm not surprised, my take: Many people in tech now are very idealistic and have a lot vested into the companies they work with. They truly believe door dash is about 'empowering small businesses' (or whatever pretty words their employer has on the about us).
And the thing is, doordash does do that. But the reason for it's valuation, and the ultimate purpose of the investors, is rent seeking. Providing service is the way to get people hooked, it's a secondary consideration for these investors. So anything that directly or indirectly highlights this discrepancy between what the workers are trying to achieve and what the ultimate company beneficiaries are trying to achieve, will be viewed with hostility by those who so truly want to make the world a better place. Which I think is the majority here. :)