Companies like Uber "burning" money is a wealth transfer from Uber investors to Uber customers, employees, and vendors, creating tremendous value where there was once none (labor exploitation notwithstanding).
Is it sustainable? No. But I disagree that it represents waste from anyone's perspective but the shareholders'.
More like a wealth transfer to AWS, corporate lawyers, and software engineers. Poor people are not becoming enriched by Uber
True.
The value creation I had in mind was with respect to the people who were previously very badly underserved by the traditional taxi/black-car industry, and are now served by Uber.
Ultimately much of the wealth is transferred to landlords in areas where Uber has facilities and employees.
Re:How this Ends
by tppiotrowski on Thursday February 18, 2021 @12:25PM
(#26182697)
I think there are economic losers like taxi cab companies so it’s not a clear wealth transfer for most people.
The US has a bunch of real resources. They are being directed to companies that are basically burning them for no reason ($X off resource in, $X less a bit out).
If they demand that companies show any sort of ability to generate more than they consume, then too many companies fail. So instead they are encouraging wasteful companies to keep on doing what they do.
At some point, the deadweight builds up and a series of worsening crisises emerge as people start fighting over what is left, which is no longer enough to have a peaceful society.
The problem is that if losers don't lose, they will end up in control of the economy. I could out-compete almost anyone on vast amounts of borrowed money while making a loss.