5 ms·

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB an

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB and Uber are not... yet).

csydas 10y ago
I'm not sure I follow. I didn't explain my point well now that I've re-read it but the idea is more than the early maverick hacker projects felt more like just a project, something that was made to make sure everyone's lives got better. Uber, AirBnB, et. al., were business from the beginning. Their interests look to be making money, not providing a service or making it better. The focus isn't on making transportation or hospitality better, it's about controlling a market with their system and earning a profit. Motive matters, and it just doesn't strike that they are really benefitting anyone but themselves. This isn't saying their services can't be useful - heck, I have an AirBnB reservation for my holiday the next 3 weeks. But I also don't doubt that if AirBnB would change their service in an instant if it suited them. They're only doing hospitality because there's money in it. That's not really the same spirit and it's not really with our benefit in mind, it's with our wallets in mind.
- DougBTX 10y ago
  > I'm not sure I follow. So, thinking out loud... a billion dollars at $10 a ride, so lots of transactions, lots of customers. Theory says a transaction will only happen if both sides feel they will profit, so lots of people must have benefited, right? But no, because you were talking about the total benefit, not total number of people who benefit. Trivially, if the customers got a ride plus a share of a billion dollars, they'd be better off than if they just got the ride. More benefit would be delivered to customers if Uber had zero revenue, so using a massive revenue figure as a measure of value delivered to customers is meaningless. But, the guy might still be on to something, since Uber benefiting lots of people only a little may still be more total benefit than some free software that hardly anyone uses, he just needs to back that idea up with something more substantial.
- mdpopescu 10y ago
  Uber and AirBnB made a billion dollars by having a lot of satisfied customers. Being satisfied is a benefit. In other words, they benefited a lot of people. The fact that I have to explain this makes me wonder...
IanCal 10y ago
> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", No, no it is not. One party making lots of money is not the same as something benefitting everyone. Companies ignoring environmental regulations could make more money, but it wouldn't benefit everyone, as an example.
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  Before even talking about externalities like the environment it's worth noting that revenue isn't profit. So who benefits from revenue depends on profit margins. If a startup disrupts a high margin industry, especially if that industry is also inefficient (which often goes together) and replaces it with a more efficient lower margin business model, then consumers will benefit. If a startup disrupts an industry by finding loopholes in government regulations, the question of who benefits is much more complicated. I do believe that finding loopholes or even breaking the law to some degree is a necessary part of the democratic process. It's also unavoidable given the global nature of some businesses. But whether or not regulatory arbitrage benefits anyone other than founders and investors very much depends on the specific business model and local circumstances. It's extremely complicated and varied. Finding out what all the effects are will probably produce a couple of nobel laureates in economics.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >If a startup disrupts a high margin industry, especially if that industry is also inefficient (which often goes together) and replaces it with a more efficient lower margin business model, then consumers will benefit. If before you had independent smaller businesses or individuals, and now all that has been captured by a single company, then a job has just gone down the drain, and the road is open for monopoly.
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      That is always a danger. But I think history has shown that monopolies or oligopolies are often less stable than they appear. The assumption, beginning with Marx I think, was that monopolies have a self reinforcing element. That's true, but there is also a self defeating element. The more a monopoly absuses its power, the more complacent it becomes and the greater the incentive to disrupt it. The problem is that governments sometimes collude with monopolists instead of making sure that markets are actually functioning as they should.
madeofpalk 10y ago
> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone" This is by far the strangest thing I've ever heard.
- iopq 10y ago
  If millions of people want to pay you money, you bet you're benefiting someone. Or else they wouldn't pay.
- Trundle 10y ago
  How do you think revenue is generated? People give you money because they rather have your good/service than the money. Selling something to someone is benefitting them.
  - madeofpalk 10y ago
    I look at plenty of companies that make billions of dollars yet benefits very few.
    - mdpopescu 10y ago
      Do you have any examples where they did that purely on the market, without benefiting from regulatory capture?
      - madeofpalk 10y ago
        Typical 'vice' companies? Gambling and cigarettes, oil? 'Big Pharma'? Does heath insurance count as 'regulatory capture'?
        mdpopescu 10y ago
        Gambling and cigarettes - lots of satisfied customers. Big pharma - regulatory capture. Health insurance - mostly regulatory capture in the US.
  - 10y ago
jd_hicks 10y ago
Travis?
xiaoma 10y ago
Wikipedia benefits just about everybody with an internet connection and they sure don't make a billion dollars a year. The same could be said of open source devs who contribute to core projects running our internet.
- mdpopescu 10y ago
  You're talking about the opposite of what I said. My implication was 1 billion USD revenue => benefiting everybody Yours is Benefiting everybody => 1 billion USD revenue I stand by the first but not by the second.
  - xiaoma 10y ago
    You said: "A is the definition of B" I said: "Here are some Bs that are not A" If you had said the definition of a kangaroo was "a big marsupial from Australia" and I pointed out many kangroos that weren't actually big marsupials from Australia, It would suggest that the definition was flawed.
    - mdpopescu 10y ago
      > You said: "A is the definition of B" > I said: "Here are some Bs that are not A" Yes, and I pointed out that the two are unrelated. > If you had said the definition of a kangaroo was "a big marsupial from Australia" and I pointed out many kangroos that weren't actually big marsupials from Australia, It would suggest that the definition was flawed. If I had said that the definition of an A (kangaroo) is a B (big marsupial), and you pointed out that many As (kangaroos) aren't Bs (big marsupials), I would have been proven wrong. However, I said A (companies making a billion dollars in revenue) implies B (they benefit a lot of people) and you pointed out some Bs (companies benefiting everyone) that aren't As (companies making a billion dollars in revenue), which is irrelevant. This is basic logic, I learned it in fifth grade. A => B is not a commutative operation.
coldtea 10y ago
Because that money are spread around to people? Old companies needed 1000s of workers to make that money, so money were indeed somewhat distributed. Automation and computing means a company can make that with 50-100 people even, and huge profit margins on that billion dollars. And then with the right schemes, you can also avoid paying taxes.
ionised 10y ago
> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone" Is this satire?

Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", except when you're a part of regulatory capture (which AirBnB and Uber are not... yet).

csydas 10y ago

I'm not sure I follow. I didn't explain my point well now that I've re-read it but the idea is more than the early maverick hacker projects felt more like just a project, something that was made to make sure everyone's lives got better. Uber, AirBnB, et. al., were business from the beginning. Their interests look to be making money, not providing a service or making it better. The focus isn't on making transportation or hospitality better, it's about controlling a market with their system and earning a profit. Motive matters, and it just doesn't strike that they are really benefitting anyone but themselves. This isn't saying their services can't be useful - heck, I have an AirBnB reservation for my holiday the next 3 weeks. But I also don't doubt that if AirBnB would change their service in an instant if it suited them. They're only doing hospitality because there's money in it. That's not really the same spirit and it's not really with our benefit in mind, it's with our wallets in mind.

DougBTX 10y ago
> I'm not sure I follow. So, thinking out loud... a billion dollars at $10 a ride, so lots of transactions, lots of customers. Theory says a transaction will only happen if both sides feel they will profit, so lots of people must have benefited, right? But no, because you were talking about the total benefit, not total number of people who benefit. Trivially, if the customers got a ride plus a share of a billion dollars, they'd be better off than if they just got the ride. More benefit would be delivered to customers if Uber had zero revenue, so using a massive revenue figure as a measure of value delivered to customers is meaningless. But, the guy might still be on to something, since Uber benefiting lots of people only a little may still be more total benefit than some free software that hardly anyone uses, he just needs to back that idea up with something more substantial.
mdpopescu 10y ago
Uber and AirBnB made a billion dollars by having a lot of satisfied customers. Being satisfied is a benefit. In other words, they benefited a lot of people. The fact that I have to explain this makes me wonder...

IanCal 10y ago

> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone", No, no it is not. One party making lots of money is not the same as something benefitting everyone. Companies ignoring environmental regulations could make more money, but it wouldn't benefit everyone, as an example.

fauigerzigerk 10y ago
Before even talking about externalities like the environment it's worth noting that revenue isn't profit. So who benefits from revenue depends on profit margins. If a startup disrupts a high margin industry, especially if that industry is also inefficient (which often goes together) and replaces it with a more efficient lower margin business model, then consumers will benefit. If a startup disrupts an industry by finding loopholes in government regulations, the question of who benefits is much more complicated. I do believe that finding loopholes or even breaking the law to some degree is a necessary part of the democratic process. It's also unavoidable given the global nature of some businesses. But whether or not regulatory arbitrage benefits anyone other than founders and investors very much depends on the specific business model and local circumstances. It's extremely complicated and varied. Finding out what all the effects are will probably produce a couple of nobel laureates in economics.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >If a startup disrupts a high margin industry, especially if that industry is also inefficient (which often goes together) and replaces it with a more efficient lower margin business model, then consumers will benefit. If before you had independent smaller businesses or individuals, and now all that has been captured by a single company, then a job has just gone down the drain, and the road is open for monopoly.
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
    That is always a danger. But I think history has shown that monopolies or oligopolies are often less stable than they appear. The assumption, beginning with Marx I think, was that monopolies have a self reinforcing element. That's true, but there is also a self defeating element. The more a monopoly absuses its power, the more complacent it becomes and the greater the incentive to disrupt it. The problem is that governments sometimes collude with monopolists instead of making sure that markets are actually functioning as they should.

madeofpalk 10y ago

> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone" This is by far the strangest thing I've ever heard.

iopq 10y ago
If millions of people want to pay you money, you bet you're benefiting someone. Or else they wouldn't pay.
Trundle 10y ago
How do you think revenue is generated? People give you money because they rather have your good/service than the money. Selling something to someone is benefitting them.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  I look at plenty of companies that make billions of dollars yet benefits very few.
  - mdpopescu 10y ago
    Do you have any examples where they did that purely on the market, without benefiting from regulatory capture?
    - madeofpalk 10y ago
      Typical 'vice' companies? Gambling and cigarettes, oil? 'Big Pharma'? Does heath insurance count as 'regulatory capture'?
      - mdpopescu 10y ago
        Gambling and cigarettes - lots of satisfied customers. Big pharma - regulatory capture. Health insurance - mostly regulatory capture in the US.
- 10y ago

jd_hicks 10y ago

Travis?

xiaoma 10y ago

Wikipedia benefits just about everybody with an internet connection and they sure don't make a billion dollars a year. The same could be said of open source devs who contribute to core projects running our internet.

mdpopescu 10y ago
You're talking about the opposite of what I said. My implication was 1 billion USD revenue => benefiting everybody Yours is Benefiting everybody => 1 billion USD revenue I stand by the first but not by the second.
- xiaoma 10y ago
  You said: "A is the definition of B" I said: "Here are some Bs that are not A" If you had said the definition of a kangaroo was "a big marsupial from Australia" and I pointed out many kangroos that weren't actually big marsupials from Australia, It would suggest that the definition was flawed.
  - mdpopescu 10y ago
    > You said: "A is the definition of B" > I said: "Here are some Bs that are not A" Yes, and I pointed out that the two are unrelated. > If you had said the definition of a kangaroo was "a big marsupial from Australia" and I pointed out many kangroos that weren't actually big marsupials from Australia, It would suggest that the definition was flawed. If I had said that the definition of an A (kangaroo) is a B (big marsupial), and you pointed out that many As (kangaroos) aren't Bs (big marsupials), I would have been proven wrong. However, I said A (companies making a billion dollars in revenue) implies B (they benefit a lot of people) and you pointed out some Bs (companies benefiting everyone) that aren't As (companies making a billion dollars in revenue), which is irrelevant. This is basic logic, I learned it in fifth grade. A => B is not a commutative operation.

coldtea 10y ago

Because that money are spread around to people? Old companies needed 1000s of workers to make that money, so money were indeed somewhat distributed. Automation and computing means a company can make that with 50-100 people even, and huge profit margins on that billion dollars. And then with the right schemes, you can also avoid paying taxes.

ionised 10y ago

> Making a billion dollars a year revenue is pretty much the definition of "benefiting everyone" Is this satire?