People didn't seriously upend their lives to drive for Uber until they retire. The people who were hurt by Uber were people who bought taxi medallions and suddenly found themselves competing with unlicensed taxis.

But on that point, as much as it sucks for them, their monopoly status meant the service was overpriced and didn't innovate. Uber might have been underpriced when it was subsidized, but it's still cheaper than taxis and makes rid hailing easier. Don't forget that even after the reality of things set in, Uber is still a $50B company. There's a real business there.

A more benevolent reading of this is that the VC money is used to make the product more affordable at small scale. Many times products become cheaper/affordable at larger scales. Young companies use the VC $$ help to get them across that inflection point.

This logic breaks down when the product cost doesn’t get lower with more scale. Customer service oriented companies usually fall in this category.

This analogy is strange. Free market types aren't against private investors throwing private money at bad investments nor would they want any regulations against it.

"At least government subsidies have a benevolent intent usually."

Government subsidies aren't known for wasteful spending? They don't hide the real value of a product (like healthcare)?

If the government damages the economy with subsidies, those responsible might have more difficulty getting elected. If a VC firm dumps a juiced bag on S&P index fund buyers while causing a bunch of trouble for taxi companies and first time homebuyers, are any of their clients going to be pissed? My guess is they'll probably congratulate them on a job well done.

They're free to do so, but isn't it cheating when it undercuts competitors while propping up unsustainable businesses in the long run? Subsidies that support predatory pricing don't sound fair.

I don't see why anyone would characterise some people choosing to spend and lose their money as "cheating".