> remain solvent long enough to become a monopoloy I used to think this, but I'm increasingly skeptical this is actually the plan. 1. It's unlikely all other

> remain solvent long enough to become a monopoloy I used to think this, but I'm increasingly skeptical this is actually the plan. 1. It's unlikely all other similar transportation options fold in the next five to ten years. (Beyond that you're putting a lot of faith in your ability to predict market activity very far in the future). 2. There are available substitutes for some types of trips, and substitutes make it difficult for monopolies to extract rents. E.g., sometimes they are competing with cross town buses, sometimes they are competing with walking, ebikes, or scooters, sometimes they are competing with asking a friend for a ride. 3. There are low barriers to entry. If Uber monopolized car hiring transportation somehow, then increased prices to collect enough rents to recoup losses from the dumping phase, a new Lyft could immediately spin up to threaten that position. Uber and Lyft cost a lot to maintain, but not necessarily to start. I mean, maybe they're optimistic that these won't be issues, but building a monopoly isn't as easy as it seems. People have been very successful as monopolists, but that doesn't mean become a monopolist is always the best strategy.