I think a lot of people just read emotional language and turn off their minds. So let's expand out what you said to make it a bit easier for others to reason ab

I think a lot of people just read emotional language and turn off their minds. So let's expand out what you said to make it a bit easier for others to reason about what you said. We're talking about founder owned companies owned by billionaires. So let's use an example of one: SpaceX. You're maligning "disruptive innovation" so let's expand out your claim with the specific example: an order of magnitude reduction in the cost of space flight and the introduction of competition in rural internet service. So you're saying enabling access to other planets and the moon while providing people in isolated areas with internet service is an example of squeezing out profits and you're saying that you think it is rent seeking. Rent seeking is defined as an economic concept that occurs when an entity seeks to gain added wealth without any reciprocal contribution of productivity. Typically, it revolves around government-funded social services and social service programs. We already had programs to access space. They were an order of magnitude more expensive. We already had programs to provide internet. They didn't serve well the subset of people that are in remote areas. So in both cases it just isn't the case that the company is doing rent seeking. In other words, you are completely wrong when we use a specific example. This applies to more specific examples. Lets use the specific example of Flexport. It is owned by a founder and you're replying to things posted by them so it's even less of a reach than before. They are introducing computers to an industry that has competitors from the 1400s era. These competitors sometimes have legacy processes built on physical paper and for some of them excel is an example of the use of cutting edge technology. You're saying that doing better than that for people using modern technology is an example of rent seeking.