4 ms·
>Please point to a platform that has created wealth for itself, at the expense of others wealth (thus not creating new wealth). >platforms don’t work hard enou
by dTal 5y ago
>Please point to a platform that has created wealth for itself, at the expense of others wealth (thus not creating new wealth).
>platforms don’t work hard enough for the cut they take”
Surely these are indeed synonymous. There's a bit of linguistic subterfuge in using "wealth" to refer to both cash and services rendered. In order to determine if a company has "created new wealth" we must indeed balance the cut they have taken with the value of services rendered. And yeah, I would argue that most "platforms" do not render value equivalent to the cut they take, and instead are exploiting some sort of monopoly position obtained through network effects. You asked me to to name some, so I would place the mobile app stores and Facebook in this category.
- qeternity 5y ago> And yeah, I would argue that most "platforms" do not render value equivalent to the cut they take Fine, I won’t even debate you on that. But that is not economic rents. What you term “linguistic subterfuge” is anything but. My whole point is that economic rents are not something up for linguistic interpretation. It is a well defined and studied concept, and it doesn’t mean what you think it does. What you really mean is that platforms are expensive, in that the fee they charge is for their services is exorbitant. But that’s entirely different from economic rents.