It's certainly the case with energy. Many people can barely afford their electricity expenses and yet big tech wants to build data centres which will gobble up energy like no one's business. In fact it runs completely counter to the environmental rhetoric.

Electricity is like 30 euros per month. What are you even talking about?

Much more expensive in the US. Especially in areas that use resistive heating in the winter.

How bad it is exactly? Resistive heating sounds cursed, when the houses are (I guess) not the fancy European newbuild.

I'm looking at something like 1000 kWh on a heat pump a year in a mild weather, where kWh is around 0.30 eurocents. I don't however own the pump, energy company leases it to me, so I pay about 150 a month the whole year (cold months are about 4 GJ, but it totals to 18-ish in a year). Then there is another 10-30 a month for normal in-house electricity consumption.

When I had actual district heating (powered by gas, when the gas was expensive af) and the house was "leakier", I looked at something like 50ish GJ a year and paid close to 350.

I live in Scotland. It costs me a lot more than the equivalent of thirty Euros. Nearly double that. I couldn't reduce my electricity bill much more if I tried. I don't watch TV, use my oven and don't heat my home most of the year (I haven't once this winter so far, even though I am cold some of the time.)

It costs a lot more than that where I live. They keep sending me info on how to save energy. I have a small home and use about as little as I can, and most of my bill consists of tax and standing charges! It is NOT cheap.

Gas is even more expensive. I had to have mine cut off.

So it's the same as big oil (for oil-poor countries).

Yes, it used to be common wisdom that you cannot have markets being run by private companies, that if such a situation develops it needs to be nationalized immediately. However, the last thing that happened to was the electricity grid.

It is happening again with a few rail networks. We'll see.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Uber takes 25% of the fare. But let's say that the alternative is old-style taxi companies, and they were protected from competition by the medallion system. They were not exactly lean-and-mean companies. What percent did they lose by inefficiency? Less than 25%, or more? And is losing it to inefficiency better than losing it to Uber, or worse?

Note well: I do not have answers for these questions. But I think the questions are interesting.

Define inefficiency, I'd much rather pay for local inefficiency which is still money changing hands in my local economy rather than paying a bit less for my money to be siphoned out of my local economy with increased efficiency.

Losing to Uber means my money is not being used in my economy, it goes away, it pays a few devs/local staff while it's stashed away in other financialised assets that do not help my neighbours (well, perhaps it helps the richest ones).

What if you get a much better service from Uber?

Most local produce initatives fail because they're not actually better than the global/international variants, especially considered from a price/quality pov.

Uber is generally more expensive than yellow cabs in NYC these days.