[exhibitapp]

A lot businesses that we use daily (uber, airbnb, wework) which are great products would never have made it under today's environment. Not a comment on if this is good or not, just an observation that the Fed indirectly funded innovation. These companies might be questionable businesses, but have products people love.

[mrtksn]

I don't know if I agree. All these existed all over the world in the same or similar forms, it's just that none of those had the fuel to grow to global scale.

Maybe what Fed did was to subsidise businesses who didn't have to be that big after all.

Tell me again, why AirBnB-Uber-WeWork have to be different companies? They do the same thing for a different product category through different UI.

I'm not sure that there's such a big tech innovation in the rental business with slightly different scheduling. Selling dollar for pennies is also not that big of an innovation, all these products were great when subsidised and once they actually have to make money, they are no longer that compensative.

IMHO the cheap money was toxic, weakened the signal, disturbing the SnR and the US will suffer from this until learns again how to make products that people willing to pay for.

[tfehring]

I won't comment on Airbnb because I work there, but for Uber and WeWork, the fact that they're global is a feature in and of itself. It's great that I can request a ride in a city I've never been to, in my native language, without having to look up a local taxi company's phone number or download their app, and with relatively low risk of getting scammed or extorted.

I don't know if Uber or WeWork are or will ever be good investments, but their products are clearly great for users. The fact that they abstract away the underlying hard problems so effectively that they seem like they should be the same app is just a testament to this. But the underlying problems that they're solving are fundamentally very different. WeWork doesn't need Uber's complicated routing and matching algorithms, for example. And unlike WeWork, Uber probably doesn't have architects or construction engineers on staff.

[mrtksn]

Of course they have an utility but the question is if it is that big of an utility to warrant the current or their peak valuations. Also, bulldozing over the local laws and regulations is not that big of an abstraction to act as a moat, nor is the routing algo or anything else. There were/are so many companies doing it, it's just that they didn't have the deep pockets to compete against companies who sell a dollar for pennies.

[JohnFen]

I'm amused that your three examples, Uber, Airbnb, and WeWork, are (at best) problematic companies.

[intelVISA]

and that's the generous interpretation!

[AYBABTME]

At the same time a lot of innovation was for stuff like Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, etc. Lots of focus on making a quick buck at the expense of humanity's long term prospects.

[short_sells_poo]

Wow, you quote 3 businesses, two of which exist not because of some grand innovation but by blatantly ignoring regulation all over the world. The founder of the third one was running borderline fraud until finally he was forced out when the firm nearly blew up (unrelated to the fraudulent behavior).

You really could've picked better examples :)

[marcosdumay]

You can be sure that easy money for a few and widespread anticompetitive practices also destroyed plenty of possible great things.

[huevosabio]

Indeed, it's a balance. The Fed indirectly controls our explore / exploit trade-off.