5 ms·
I think the most effective argument against Wansley and Weinstein is that the markets may reset after the companies involved collapse, so you essentially get a
by HillRat 3y ago
I think the most effective argument against Wansley and Weinstein is that the markets may reset after the companies involved collapse, so you essentially get a transfer of value from shareholders to VCs and from shareholders and VCs to consumers at the cost of disrupting (in a very negative way, certainly) existing competitors. In other words, given a long enough time horizon, it's not really a monopoly problem, it's a fraud problem, and the losers are retail investors who were gulled by VCs funding impossible and unsustainable business models in pursuit of IPO-happy greater fools. (And, if the bloom comes off the SV VC rose, as it well should, then those con games are less likely to work, and we'll see a rapid collapse in valuations, junk IPOs, investments, and, relatedly, these same attempts to corner monopolies in markets -- like software -- where there is no natural barrier to competition.)
- mnky9800n 3y agoRetail investors are always the losers.
- excalibur 3y ago> Retail investors are always the losers. Among the losers anyway. Pretty hard to pick a bigger loser in this equation than the humble Uber driver or Amazon warehouse worker.
- dns_snek 3y agoElaborate, how are employees bigger losers than retail investors? The former would have to find new jobs, the latter could be screwed out of their life savings.
- DrScientist 3y agoI don't know the truth of working conditions and salaries - but let me give you some scenarios. You lose your job at Amazon competitor and start to work for Amazon. - You are paid less ( let's say 2.5% ) - that massively compounds over a lifetime and/or -your quality of life at work is much less - and that's about half your waking hours for most of the week - so I'd call that a big deal.
- monocasa 3y agoRetail investors more or less know they're gambling. Employees are just expecting an honest wage for an honest day's work.
- excalibur 3y agoOkay, I'll go burn some money on bad investments. You shit in a diaper 10 hours a day (because if you go to the bathroom too many times you get fired) for the privilege of sliding further and further into debt in an attempt to live on $15/hr. We'll see who the bigger loser is.
- version_five 3y agoMy rough analysis is there is a hierarchy: - public markets - VC - PE - Family Office The smartest money is people you've never heard of buying high quality assets. VC and PE are basically running their own versions of fixing up companies and dumping them on the public, and public markets are where all the dumbest money is.
- DrScientist 3y agoAgain you are forgetting those people who have their livelihoods destroyed by being unable to compete with free money. These people aren't IPO happy fools. These are real people working hard, who through not fault of their own, are forced out of a job as a side effect of a Valley hustle.
- pyrale 3y ago> I think the most effective argument against Wansley and Weinstein is that the markets may reset after the companies involved collapse The point they are making is that even if the companies fail to corner the market, the VCs can (and do) exit with a profit before the collapse. Therefore, predatory pricing is a profitable strategy for some actors. This line of argument essentially defeats the claim that losses needs to be recouped for the strategy to be profitable, and therefore, is rare [1], as the FTC claims: > This strategy can only be successful if the short-run losses from pricing below cost will be made up for by much higher prices over a longer period of time after competitors leave the market. [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/predatory-or-below-cost-pricing https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...