4 ms·
> while not wasting a ton of capital Easy, only companies with absurd amounts of cash will be able to compete, and won't mind burning through billions to domin
by burkaman 8y ago
> while not wasting a ton of capital
Easy, only companies with absurd amounts of cash will be able to compete, and won't mind burning through billions to dominate the market. The economics of Uber and Lyft don't work right now, but that isn't stopping them.
Google, Uber, GM, and whoever else will compete with one or two heavily funded startups, until one wins and the rest fail because of the dynamics you describe.
- moate 8y agoAnd this is...good?
- burkaman 8y agoNo it's obviously bad.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- marcosdumay 8y agoRich people fighting each other to decide who will subsidize my transportation forever? Sounds good. It also sounds like something that won't happen, or at least won't last. So I think the GP has the wrong picture.
- JaimeThompson 8y agoForever? No until they control the market at which point you will pay all the subsidy back with interest.
- marcosdumay 8y agoOnly if they somehow create a barrier to entry that doesn't exist today. It's not impossible, but if they go into corrupt regulation (how else could they do it?) there is no reason they can't get the same without the throwing a lot of money away first. So, again, they won't.
- moate 8y agoI think the barrier to entry is inherent in the "rich people..." part of your idea. Industries that have a huge financial requirement in order to lay down the technologies needed have historically been the WORST monopolies (at least in the US, we have examples in Oil, Railroads, telecoms, etc). Also, you make it sound like corrupt, industry protecting regulation is the exception and not the norm. Where do you live, and does this fantasy place accept immigrants?