311–318 of 318 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you said profit seeking but I believe you meant rent seeking. All businesses profit seek, it's how you fund innovation after paying your bills.
Amazon didn't need profit to fund innovation.
This article isn't about disruption, this article is about the gig economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Uber's defining value proposition was circumventing the artificial monopoly created by the taxi medallion system Licensing/regulatory evasion is one of the principal strategies that got Uber (taxi services), Airbnb (hotel services) and Paypal (banking services) off the ground and allowed them to compete so effectively against incumbents. Eventually regulation caught up somewhat but the newcomers still seem to enjoy…
If regulation is the only think keeping the incumbents on top for something like a car service, then that’s a problem.
In the case of taxis, while the medallion system (for example) gave medallion owners a monopoly on regulated "taxi" service, it also discouraged (or outright prevented) them from expanding services and competing effectively against Uber. Moreover the monopoly market's reduced competition did little to encourage innovation or service improvements.
That being said, your point is a good one in general, and the same result (regulation preserving incumbents - for a time at least - by increasing barriers to entry and shielding them from competition) repeats itself over and over. One could imagine a powerful company (Facebook) welcoming regulation as a way to preserve or prolong its dominance by creating a regulatory burden that potential competitors would struggle to overcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an awful example being such an exceptional case, so maybe you should elaborate.
What about WeWork then
And to insert some other examples, Uber has taken a massive haircut, Zoom, etc.
The reality is if you zoom in on a small window of time the market will always look irrational.
But it all comes out in the wash once you zoom out, the companies of the .dot com boom that truly innovated were rewarded for example
Amazon survived, created AWS, and look at them today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are there any slide decks or investor material out there that confirm this is the business model? I hear it all the time on HN but it just doesn't make sense. The barrier to entry in the taxi market is too low. You can't kill off competition and start monopoly pricing. The competition will always reappear.
I think it might be kept implicit, so investors will not start questioning it. I think the logic is to own the portal to taxis and become a gatekeeper, by being the only app that the user has installed for hailing taxis. So the barrier to entry becomes large because you have to convince people to install your app.
There's still a speed-bump, but it isn't as jarring.
I thought I read in a different article that we have seen tremendous gains in productivity but no gains in real wages.
There is no real journalism, only perspectives trying to win mindshare. Those that believe, and may be able to prove in productivity gains are being actively shouted down by those better funded saying otherwise. The truth? There is no truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no real journalism, only perspectives trying to win mindshare. Those that believe, and may be able to prove in productivity gains are being actively shouted down by those better funded saying otherwise. The truth? There is no truth.
I believe this is not true. There are degrees of truthfulness. Some journalist do a better job than other. Such cynicism is the exact effect tyrants like Trump and Putin seek. It means they are free to do as they please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you said profit seeking but I believe you meant rent seeking. All businesses profit seek, it's how you fund innovation after paying your bills.
Amazon didn't need profit to fund innovation.