I think it's more interesting to look at it as a corruption of traditional supply/demand signalling in a market economy. By heavily subsidizing a service, investors are able to put their finger on the scale and choose winners despite what consumers would actually choose if competition was more fair. Previously, this kind of behaviour was considered "dumping" and anti-competitive. Yet, currently it's considered OK because startups (read VCs) are doing it instead of large monopolies.

It's interesting to see how this might relate to wealth inequality as well. If investors had less money and consumers had more, would they choose a less-subsidized Uber over traditional cab services as readily?