WeWork is just one part of it, however. Uber is another Ponzi scheme, living on underpriced rides and multi-billion losses for as long as their bond rating holds up.

Uber isn'ta Ponzi scheme.

I use Uber all the time, as does everyone I know. Hell, I even drove for them for a while.

They provide a needed service and they are subsidizing that to get rid of competition like Lyft and to grow a huge user base. Then, it's likely they will raise prices and start making money.

But it is not a Ponzi scheme. Last I checked, a local taxi company that is still in business wants $30 to take me into town, which is 5 miles away. Uber is $7.

> But it is not a Ponzi scheme. Last I checked, a local taxi company that is still in business wants $30 to take me into town, which is 5 miles away. Uber is $7.

The cost of that $7 are the billions they lose every quarter. It's not sustainable. They're a public company now, so to come up with fresh cash, they have to issue bonds and pay interest on them. How will they repay it when they aren't generating fresh cash through profits? They can't rely on VCs opening their wallets whenever they needed money.

> The cost of that $7 are the billions they lose every quarter. It's not sustainable.

They will raise prices eventually, they are in the "get a lot of regular users" phase still, growing that until they are ubiquitous.

Yes, they may face monopoly concerns then, but that is down the road.

What they will not face is competition from the $30 taxi companies, because unlike the taxi company they do not own any cars and the resultant costs of that.

I believe the plan is to increase prices.

Cheap rides are to gain marketshare and customer acquisition. Not saying the strategy will be fruitful but it is a strategy.

That's a terrible plan considering any one of their competitors could not raise their own prices and now be a preferred choice to Uber.

And what's their profit exit? The ever-innovative and dubious "forcing people to watch fucking ads while they ride around."

Not to mention Versailles was built with taxpayers money.

It's not as straightforward with VC money. VCs have to answer to investors.

(Hopefully someone more knowledgable can chime in,) but I always thought VC was a mix of government, private, and institutional funds?

I think there's an argument that taxpayers are indirectly funding all of this.

If you assume that the government needs $X to perform its function then when tax rates are cut for corporations and those wealthy enough to game the system, its everyone else whose taxes pay the shortfall. The reason there is so much money floating around the top end is specifically because they've figured out how to foist their tax burden onto others.

I don't know where you're getting this idea. At its highest, it was less than 5% of total State spending.