edit: I think the article is deeply confused about whether it wants to talk about how shitty WeWork and it's associated investors are, versus why pumping loss-l

edit: I think the article is deeply confused about whether it wants to talk about how shitty WeWork and it's associated investors are, versus why pumping loss-leading companies full of cash is a bad idea. The former is just yellow journalism and not very interesting (also well-aired already), the latter is important (imo). The point is a simple one, I think. It's well understood that capitalism breaks if an actor is able to consistently create and defend a monopoly. Pumping a loss-leading company full of capital under the expectation that it will loss-lead until it dominates the market is one such strategy. WeWork is a classic example of this strategy in action, albeit an ill-begotten one. We've made this illegal in the past, we should consistently enforce such laws as exist, and improve them to bring them into 2019. Let's not get pinheaded about this thought. I'm personally bootstrapping a company from $0. That means I'm using my "deep pockets" to "loss lead" a company. Nothing about what I'm doing is "anticompetetive" in the relevant sense because of scale. Furthermore, my growth is pegged to my ability to make money (I won't hire unless I can pay a salary out of revenue). I do think capping naked investment in loss-leading companies is probably a good idea. I personally think VC culture results in bloated, unsustainable companies that over-hire overpriced engineers, and that it's long term a very inefficient strategy that is bad for the health of the economy. Obviously this is a weird forum to air that view on, but here we are. At least I'm putting my money where my mouth is.