Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by passwordoops 1294 days ago
The original argument is "If you can't be profitable without eliminating all the competition by first undercutting them, then jacking up prices on users, then you shouldn't exist"

Standard oil was profitable and they were able to afford undercutting the competition. That maneuver was too gain complete control over a diverse, vibrant market. Gig economy companies have never been profitable, and the only way they can be profitable is to increase prices to the point where consumers will stop using them.

Also, unlike Standard Oil, these unicorns are a Ponzi scheme. They provide a real service, sure. But the only way they were able to provide that service was to keep increasing their private-market valuation, with the next investor saying "I'm in, because next time they raise, it'll be at a higher price". What happens after every one of these gig companies went public? The private investors cash out, and the stock collapses.

In what way is this not a Ponzi?