[itsoktocry]

>That guy got incredibly rich creating a company that was clearly not viable and seems likely to bankrupt.

WeWork is an extreme case, but this kind of thing happens with tech companies all the time.

Why do you think people in Silicon Valley equate an "exit" with success? Because at that point the insiders are paid out. What else matters?

Look at companies like Uber, Coinbase or Snap. Even Tesla. Insiders have accumulated billions in compensation that dwarves the value generated by the companies themselves (as measured by earnings).

[antihero]

This is just capitalism working as intended.

[edgyquant]

No, quite the opposite actually

[SQueeeeeL]

The issue pointed out by these two comments come from a conflation of vocabulary (which is typically intentional at least at some point in the education). A truly "free market" would ensure that things like WeWork wouldn't happen because the ultimate material inputs and outputs of the company don't square. "Capitalism" is the seeking of profit at the expense of all others, where having a viable company no longer is an objective in itself but simply is a means to increase personal wealth. In such a system, WeWork makes a lot of sense because the long term solvency of the company does not impact how the market measures it's success.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk

[edgyquant]

No capitalism is private ownership of capital. The profit seeking at the expense of others is a leftist caricature of capitalism just as laziness is the right wing caricature of socialism. No economic system exists to incentivize the stuff that happened during the rise and fall of WeWork.

[JohnFen]

> "Capitalism" is the seeking of profit at the expense of all others

No, that's not what defines capitalism at all. That's a degenerate form more usually called "predatory capitalism".

[phone[phone]]

We have the largest wealth inequality since the gilded age, and the Federal Reserve solution to runaway inflation was forcing workers to either settle for lower salaries or become unemployed.

In what was is predatory capitalism not the rule of the day?

[xcdzvyn]

If we're trying to define precise terms here, "free market" and "capitalism" don't overlap at all. Capitalism is a type of government, free markets are a (group of) polic[y/ies].

I don't see where the logic of your comment comes from either way though - capitalists are typically in favour of a free market, no? And typically the "purpose" of a free market is accruing wealth as part of a private enterprise?

[SQueeeeeL]

Free markets are sometimes useful tools in making profits but are also sometimes hinderences towards being able to extract the highest amount of profit from consumers.

That's why we see so many mergers and intensive lobbying for government regulation in things like healthcare, telecoms, and air travel, it's way easier to make money if you can restrict competition in your market and it's something essential to consumers

[xcdzvyn]

I see! I apologise for my naïvitié, thanks :)

[jszymborski]

> Capitalism is a type of governmen

E.g.: Democracy, oligarchy, dictatorships are forms of government.

Capitalism, socialism, etc... are economic systems.

I point this out because people in my country sometimes forget that it's a system of elected officials that govern us, not capitalism.

[andrekandre]

what would be the correct/ideal way it would function in that regard?

[HDThoreaun]

The founders of businesses that fail don't get billion dollar exit packages. They lost the competiton.

[93po]

This is the American version of capitalism working as intended.

[phone[phone]]

I agree, but I think we probably disagree about whether or not this is a good thing