5 ms·

Events like this are the modern moral equivalent of the giant, gaudy, gilt-encrusted palaces of the 17th century. I think this vastly overstates it. Versailles

Events like this are the modern moral equivalent of the giant, gaudy, gilt-encrusted palaces of the 17th century. I think this vastly overstates it. Versailles cost some significant fraction of France's GDP - possibly as much as 25% in some years. WeWork's $10B is a mere drop in the US' $20T GDP.

p1esk 7y ago
Not to mention Versailles was built with taxpayers money.
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  It's not as straightforward with VC money. VCs have to answer to investors. (Hopefully someone more knowledgable can chime in,) but I always thought VC was a mix of government, private, and institutional funds?
- munificent 7y ago
  I think there's an argument that taxpayers are indirectly funding all of this. If you assume that the government needs $X to perform its function then when tax rates are cut for corporations and those wealthy enough to game the system, its everyone else whose taxes pay the shortfall. The reason there is so much money floating around the top end is specifically because they've figured out how to foist their tax burden onto others.
rchaud 7y ago
WeWork is just one part of it, however. Uber is another Ponzi scheme, living on underpriced rides and multi-billion losses for as long as their bond rating holds up.
- dclowd9901 7y ago
  And what's their profit exit? The ever-innovative and dubious "forcing people to watch fucking ads while they ride around."
- eternalny1 7y ago
  Uber isn'ta Ponzi scheme. I use Uber all the time, as does everyone I know. Hell, I even drove for them for a while. They provide a needed service and they are subsidizing that to get rid of competition like Lyft and to grow a huge user base. Then, it's likely they will raise prices and start making money. But it is not a Ponzi scheme. Last I checked, a local taxi company that is still in business wants $30 to take me into town, which is 5 miles away. Uber is $7.
  - rchaud 7y ago
    > But it is not a Ponzi scheme. Last I checked, a local taxi company that is still in business wants $30 to take me into town, which is 5 miles away. Uber is $7. The cost of that $7 are the billions they lose every quarter. It's not sustainable. They're a public company now, so to come up with fresh cash, they have to issue bonds and pay interest on them. How will they repay it when they aren't generating fresh cash through profits? They can't rely on VCs opening their wallets whenever they needed money.
    - sanysany 7y ago
      I believe the plan is to increase prices. Cheap rides are to gain marketshare and customer acquisition. Not saying the strategy will be fruitful but it is a strategy.
      - notus 7y ago
        That's a terrible plan considering any one of their competitors could not raise their own prices and now be a preferred choice to Uber.
    - eternalny1 7y ago
      > The cost of that $7 are the billions they lose every quarter. It's not sustainable. They will raise prices eventually, they are in the "get a lot of regular users" phase still, growing that until they are ubiquitous. Yes, they may face monopoly concerns then, but that is down the road. What they will not face is competition from the $30 taxi companies, because unlike the taxi company they do not own any cars and the resultant costs of that.
baud147258 7y ago
I don't know where you're getting this idea. At its highest, it was less than 5% of total State spending.

p1esk 7y ago

Not to mention Versailles was built with taxpayers money.

gwbas1c 7y ago
It's not as straightforward with VC money. VCs have to answer to investors. (Hopefully someone more knowledgable can chime in,) but I always thought VC was a mix of government, private, and institutional funds?
munificent 7y ago
I think there's an argument that taxpayers are indirectly funding all of this. If you assume that the government needs $X to perform its function then when tax rates are cut for corporations and those wealthy enough to game the system, its everyone else whose taxes pay the shortfall. The reason there is so much money floating around the top end is specifically because they've figured out how to foist their tax burden onto others.

rchaud 7y ago

WeWork is just one part of it, however. Uber is another Ponzi scheme, living on underpriced rides and multi-billion losses for as long as their bond rating holds up.

dclowd9901 7y ago
And what's their profit exit? The ever-innovative and dubious "forcing people to watch fucking ads while they ride around."
eternalny1 7y ago
Uber isn'ta Ponzi scheme. I use Uber all the time, as does everyone I know. Hell, I even drove for them for a while. They provide a needed service and they are subsidizing that to get rid of competition like Lyft and to grow a huge user base. Then, it's likely they will raise prices and start making money. But it is not a Ponzi scheme. Last I checked, a local taxi company that is still in business wants $30 to take me into town, which is 5 miles away. Uber is $7.
- rchaud 7y ago
  > But it is not a Ponzi scheme. Last I checked, a local taxi company that is still in business wants $30 to take me into town, which is 5 miles away. Uber is $7. The cost of that $7 are the billions they lose every quarter. It's not sustainable. They're a public company now, so to come up with fresh cash, they have to issue bonds and pay interest on them. How will they repay it when they aren't generating fresh cash through profits? They can't rely on VCs opening their wallets whenever they needed money.
  - sanysany 7y ago
    I believe the plan is to increase prices. Cheap rides are to gain marketshare and customer acquisition. Not saying the strategy will be fruitful but it is a strategy.
    - notus 7y ago
      That's a terrible plan considering any one of their competitors could not raise their own prices and now be a preferred choice to Uber.
  - eternalny1 7y ago
    > The cost of that $7 are the billions they lose every quarter. It's not sustainable. They will raise prices eventually, they are in the "get a lot of regular users" phase still, growing that until they are ubiquitous. Yes, they may face monopoly concerns then, but that is down the road. What they will not face is competition from the $30 taxi companies, because unlike the taxi company they do not own any cars and the resultant costs of that.

baud147258 7y ago

I don't know where you're getting this idea. At its highest, it was less than 5% of total State spending.