The sale in (1) is often on very unfavourable terms, because the valuation of a startup depends on whether the quasi-monopolist is trying to kill it or not. How much would your startup be worth if it was banned from the App Store, for example?

2) is fine .. unless there are secret no-poach agreements in place.

They do. The unstated statement by the GP is that what's good for an individual is not always good for society at large. Competition is good for society; monopoly is usually only good for the monopoly and those few who can threaten the monopoly but are happy to roll over for money.

I have a hard time figuring out what to be angry about. One day we're upset at the evil capitalists for paying workers too little. Now I guess we're upset at the evil capitalists for paying people too much.

What about "evil capitalists" using their advantage unfairly to stifle & crush competition, keeping their profits high, while keeping salaries artificially deflated for the majority of workers.

But ok, let's just create this fantastical narrative that "paying workers too little" and "paying people too much" cannot possibly apply at the same time to different segments of the population.

Hell, let's even use the loaded phrase "evil capitalists", a great term if what we're looking for is to deftly avoid any real criticism of capitalism.

What's silly is running around like Goldilocks complaining that this porridge is too hot or that porridge is too cold. Well, it's not your porridge. You're not making it, nor are you eating it. So what business is it of yours?

Yet us tech workers are some of the highest paid people in the world, and technological progress is advancing at a rate never before seen in human history.

I guess the current system isn't so bad.

> Yet us tech workers are some of the highest paid people in the world

...and inequality is skyrocketing.

> technological progress is advancing at a rate never before seen in human history.

Compared to the growth between 1900 and 1950, we should have teleportation now.

I'm not making a joke: life-changing progress keeps slowing down. E.g. refrigerators, washing machines, cars, airplanes, x-rays VS internet and smartphones.

> I guess the current system isn't so bad.

Compared to what? That's a false dichotomy fallacy.

> technological progress is advancing at a rate never before seen in human history.

I think over the last 20-30 years, the useful and helpful-to-society technological progress as a fraction of the technological industry is fairly low. Most of Silicon valley is figuring out how to extract as much ad value from consumers as possible; except for the single percentage renewable energy fraction, most of the advancements in the energy industry is a net negative for humans; medicine is stagnant because of the increase in complexity and economics; and the list goes on...

This is nowhere near the fastest technology has progressed in history.

Yes, you need an all-out mobilization of WWII and the beginning of the Cold War to move even faster. Not in the consumer segment, though.

It's almost like there are different sets of people out there, who have different experiences with things.