5 ms·

If you want to fight the VCs, you have to pull stunts like this. If they want to destroy local infrastructure because "free market", in an attempt to secure mon

If you want to fight the VCs, you have to pull stunts like this. If they want to destroy local infrastructure because "free market", in an attempt to secure monopolies for themselves, then let them operate in a free market.

supertrope 10mo ago
VC Fund My Life!
- jaggederest 10mo ago
  The appropriate musical accompaniment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbH-U2b_EsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbH-U2b_EsQ
  - BrenBarn 10mo ago
    I was hoping this would be a rickroll.
- Dylan16807 10mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasubi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasubi Win everything you need from sweepstakes!
PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
> then let them operate in a free market. I think you meant to say "operate in a market that is regulated in precisely the way they want it to be".
- wizzwizz4 10mo ago
  I said what I meant: most VC-backed startups could not survive in a real-world environment. Thank you for highlighting the distinction. Note that a free market isn't necessarily an unregulated market (see: Adam Smith). Personally, I don't believe that free markets are a sensible way to manage local affairs. They work well on a medium scale, where goods are fungible and efficiency matters: but for something like the local pizza place, customer behaviour doesn't match that of a market participant. I don't think it's sensible to expect the local pizza place to be free of arbitrage opportunities. Someone who identifies and exploits such opportunities (e.g. "free meals available on request") would be taking advantage of goodwill, and the reason we can't have nice things. However, if a large corpo comes along and starts trying to undercut the locals, absolutely mug them for all they're worth: they're playing a different game, and it's not one you should want them to win.
  - pdonis 10mo ago
    > for something like the local pizza place, customer behaviour doesn't match that of a market participant. I'm not sure why you think that. "Market participant" doesn't mean "always takes the lowest priced deal". People are willing to pay higher prices for food from local restaurants, as opposed to chains, fast food, etc., because they feel that the extra value they are getting (better quality, knowing the people who make the food, the atmosphere of the restaurant, etc.) is worth it. That's a free market. What is not a free market is large corporations who get all kinds of government favors to prop them up coming in and taking advantage of arbitrage opportunities that the locals don't have the time or the energy to protect against--still more if such opportunities involve "marketing" the locals' products in ways the locals didn't agree to, and would not agree to if they were given the opportunity to make a choice. I completely agree with you that such things should be shut down.
    - Terr_ 10mo ago
      > What is not a free market is A bit of a tangent, but price transparency is another factor. At least when economists publish their "it's the bestest and most efficient option" analyses their definition involves perfect information: No secret prices, no non-disclosure agreements, everybody knows what was paid for inputs and labor, etc. I bring this up because there is an unavoidable conflict between "the market that moves freely as a whole" version versus "the market where I'm free to keep secrets."
      - datsci_est_2015 10mo ago
        When the market does something I consider good, I call it free. When the market does something I consider bad, I call it not free [and it’s the government’s fault]. Feels tangentially related to the No True Scotsman fallacy, but with the premise flipped?
      - pdonis 10mo ago
        > price transparency is another factor Yes, agreed. One obvious place in the US where that is a huge problem is health care.
mattmaroon 10mo ago
But why do you think they’re harming “local infrastructure”? The food delivery services didn’t hurt anything but their investors in the end. And they kept the restaurant industry alive during the pandemic, the fallout would have been so much worse. I work in the industry and know several bar/restaurant owners who will tell you DoorDash and competitors are the only reason they made it through 2020-21. Early on they stopped prohibiting restaurants from upcharging, so restaurants all did. They ended up with some extra sales and profits. The customer got VC funded free delivery. Enough alternatives kept the market place efficient. DoorDash can’t get too abusive when UberEats and Instacart are competing, restaurants have no switching cost. The whole thing worked for basically everyone involved except maybe the investors (DoorDash has significantly underperformed the S&P since it debuted on the market.)
- horsawlarway 10mo ago
  This has not been my experience. From my side, as someone old enough to remember Domino's running the "there in thirty minutes or it's free" promotions... These delivery services absolutely tanked the quality of delivery. Now you can basically only get slow delivery of over priced, cold food. Sure, you can get it from far more places, but it's a pyrrhic victory if I've ever seen one. Used to be if a restaurant offered delivery, it was ok food for delivery, at ok prices, and their drivers had gear to keep it warm and presentable. Now we basically only do pick up because these universal delivery companies suck at the one fucking thing they're supposed to do. But they've run all the local restaurants out of the delivery game.
  - heavenlyblue 9mo ago
    Yard Sale Pizza in London does it's own delivery and it's great where it's available. I hated that I had to use their website but delivery is always good and still warm.
- BobbyTables2 10mo ago
  DoorDash finds a way to consistently screw up orders. Order A,B,C - receive only A+B, or A,B,D. No explanation. Tipped generously. For a long time, I myself drove and picked up my orders. The same restaurants rarely made mistakes. I never had to ask for missing item to be included. They always had everything in the bag. It’s happened so often, it has to be malice from one of the parties involved.

supertrope 10mo ago

VC Fund My Life!

jaggederest 10mo ago
The appropriate musical accompaniment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbH-U2b_EsQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbH-U2b_EsQ
- BrenBarn 10mo ago
  I was hoping this would be a rickroll.
Dylan16807 10mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasubi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasubi Win everything you need from sweepstakes!

PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago

> then let them operate in a free market. I think you meant to say "operate in a market that is regulated in precisely the way they want it to be".

wizzwizz4 10mo ago
I said what I meant: most VC-backed startups could not survive in a real-world environment. Thank you for highlighting the distinction. Note that a free market isn't necessarily an unregulated market (see: Adam Smith). Personally, I don't believe that free markets are a sensible way to manage local affairs. They work well on a medium scale, where goods are fungible and efficiency matters: but for something like the local pizza place, customer behaviour doesn't match that of a market participant. I don't think it's sensible to expect the local pizza place to be free of arbitrage opportunities. Someone who identifies and exploits such opportunities (e.g. "free meals available on request") would be taking advantage of goodwill, and the reason we can't have nice things. However, if a large corpo comes along and starts trying to undercut the locals, absolutely mug them for all they're worth: they're playing a different game, and it's not one you should want them to win.
- pdonis 10mo ago
  > for something like the local pizza place, customer behaviour doesn't match that of a market participant. I'm not sure why you think that. "Market participant" doesn't mean "always takes the lowest priced deal". People are willing to pay higher prices for food from local restaurants, as opposed to chains, fast food, etc., because they feel that the extra value they are getting (better quality, knowing the people who make the food, the atmosphere of the restaurant, etc.) is worth it. That's a free market. What is not a free market is large corporations who get all kinds of government favors to prop them up coming in and taking advantage of arbitrage opportunities that the locals don't have the time or the energy to protect against--still more if such opportunities involve "marketing" the locals' products in ways the locals didn't agree to, and would not agree to if they were given the opportunity to make a choice. I completely agree with you that such things should be shut down.
  - Terr_ 10mo ago
    > What is not a free market is A bit of a tangent, but price transparency is another factor. At least when economists publish their "it's the bestest and most efficient option" analyses their definition involves perfect information: No secret prices, no non-disclosure agreements, everybody knows what was paid for inputs and labor, etc. I bring this up because there is an unavoidable conflict between "the market that moves freely as a whole" version versus "the market where I'm free to keep secrets."
    - datsci_est_2015 10mo ago
      When the market does something I consider good, I call it free. When the market does something I consider bad, I call it not free [and it’s the government’s fault]. Feels tangentially related to the No True Scotsman fallacy, but with the premise flipped?
    - pdonis 10mo ago
      > price transparency is another factor Yes, agreed. One obvious place in the US where that is a huge problem is health care.

mattmaroon 10mo ago

But why do you think they’re harming “local infrastructure”? The food delivery services didn’t hurt anything but their investors in the end. And they kept the restaurant industry alive during the pandemic, the fallout would have been so much worse. I work in the industry and know several bar/restaurant owners who will tell you DoorDash and competitors are the only reason they made it through 2020-21. Early on they stopped prohibiting restaurants from upcharging, so restaurants all did. They ended up with some extra sales and profits. The customer got VC funded free delivery. Enough alternatives kept the market place efficient. DoorDash can’t get too abusive when UberEats and Instacart are competing, restaurants have no switching cost. The whole thing worked for basically everyone involved except maybe the investors (DoorDash has significantly underperformed the S&P since it debuted on the market.)

horsawlarway 10mo ago
This has not been my experience. From my side, as someone old enough to remember Domino's running the "there in thirty minutes or it's free" promotions... These delivery services absolutely tanked the quality of delivery. Now you can basically only get slow delivery of over priced, cold food. Sure, you can get it from far more places, but it's a pyrrhic victory if I've ever seen one. Used to be if a restaurant offered delivery, it was ok food for delivery, at ok prices, and their drivers had gear to keep it warm and presentable. Now we basically only do pick up because these universal delivery companies suck at the one fucking thing they're supposed to do. But they've run all the local restaurants out of the delivery game.
- heavenlyblue 9mo ago
  Yard Sale Pizza in London does it's own delivery and it's great where it's available. I hated that I had to use their website but delivery is always good and still warm.
BobbyTables2 10mo ago
DoorDash finds a way to consistently screw up orders. Order A,B,C - receive only A+B, or A,B,D. No explanation. Tipped generously. For a long time, I myself drove and picked up my orders. The same restaurants rarely made mistakes. I never had to ask for missing item to be included. They always had everything in the bag. It’s happened so often, it has to be malice from one of the parties involved.