4 ms·
> so massive that there's absolutely no possibility of competing Scale has no value unless it offers something to your customer base. What you're ignoring is t
by qeternity 4y ago
> so massive that there's absolutely no possibility of competing
Scale has no value unless it offers something to your customer base. What you're ignoring is that Uber, Amazon et al are so huge and dominant because customers flock to them. I can summon a taxi to my location in most cities in the world with a single app. I can have pretty much any item delivered to my door within one or two days. These were unfathomable 10-15 years ago.
Amazon has huge amounts of competition, as does Uber. I have absolutely no idea where you get this idea they are not influenced by pricing. Uber hasn't made any money in its entire existence. That is not characteristic of a monopoly.
- carschno 4y agoI think your argument is missing GP's point entirely. The point was that a functioning market economy would evolve so that companies that sell products or services at a self-sustaining price survive, whereas companies that lose money continuously die. However, this is clearly not the case, given that companies like Uber, as you mention, do survive without being profitable at all. Competitors that are not backed by near-infinite money cannot survive this competition, regardless of their product or efficiency. Whether or not a functioning market economy could ever exist in reality if of course another question.
- sokoloff 4y agoI don't know that Uber turning a mere 14 years old is proof that the market economy isn't functioning. In a time of incredibly low interest rates and the resulting free-flowing money sloshing around looking for any possible return, I'd expect a lot of companies to reach their teens without that being proof that they can continue indefinitely without showing profits and returns to investors.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]