The AI boom has turned the standard profit margin model on its head, according to Apollo Chief Economist Torsten Slok—and it’s making the industry’s growth unsustainable.
Uber is an example of government corruption leveraged to overthrow a market. The livery industry required special licensing, so only licensees were legally allowed to do it. Uber then started doing it without the $1 million per license overhead, bribed the government to ignore that, and naturally undercut their competitors that had huge government-imposed overheads that Uber didn’t. They were initially unprofitable because they had to compete for business, then became profitable when the government helped then destroy their competitors and structure their pay so as to have no minimum wage.
If you only look at modern examples, youre looking at a funhouse mirror reflection of real business operations. Running at a loss for a decade while you create a monopoly is the path to business success today, but this is not a functioning market. Real business success involves making money right out of the gate or at least right after. If your business only works if it is a near-monopoly, it is not a sound one.
I completely agree with your conclusion. Just to be clear, I was in no way saying that what Uber did and OpenAI does is OK. They both suck and should never be allowed to operate as they had and have. I don’t know if Uber was government corruption though, at least I had never heard it described as such. What I have heard is that they found loopholes in taxi laws around the world and employed a global army of lawyers exploit those loopholes.
At least in the USA, livery workers were required to have a “medallion”, which is essentially an onerously expensive license with the stated purpose of restricting competition to the point of profitability for those workers. There was no loophole, and it was ridgidly enforced.
Then, Uber came in and started violating that law so flagrantly that governments seemed stunned into inaction. The government corruption comes in where they then decided not to enforce those rules on Uber for some reason around the same time Uber aggressively contributed to political campaigns around the world.
I went down this line of discussion to point out that Uber is not a good example of organic business success that started out financially underwater. Their ethics or lack of them is an aside to the discussion, but agreed, they are unrepentant scumbags.
Got it, thanks. My memory of how Uber was able to gain a foothold was a little different, but my memory of it was patchy anyway. My recollection was that they essentially said that Uber was not a taxi service. They sold it as just regular people offering to “share” a ride with someone else to an area that they were going to anyway. I have no doubt that heavy political contributions were part of their arsenal in their attack on the taxi industry and regulations, so I agree that this was government corruption. But I also recall that they also had armies of lawyers fighting at every level of government around the world to ram through the idea that this wasn’t a taxi service and shouldn’t be subject to taxi regulations. Maybe my memory is more patchy than I thought, or perhaps both things were true - government corruption and a legal war allowed them flourish.
Uber is an example of government corruption leveraged to overthrow a market. The livery industry required special licensing, so only licensees were legally allowed to do it. Uber then started doing it without the $1 million per license overhead, bribed the government to ignore that, and naturally undercut their competitors that had huge government-imposed overheads that Uber didn’t. They were initially unprofitable because they had to compete for business, then became profitable when the government helped then destroy their competitors and structure their pay so as to have no minimum wage.
If you only look at modern examples, youre looking at a funhouse mirror reflection of real business operations. Running at a loss for a decade while you create a monopoly is the path to business success today, but this is not a functioning market. Real business success involves making money right out of the gate or at least right after. If your business only works if it is a near-monopoly, it is not a sound one.
I completely agree with your conclusion. Just to be clear, I was in no way saying that what Uber did and OpenAI does is OK. They both suck and should never be allowed to operate as they had and have. I don’t know if Uber was government corruption though, at least I had never heard it described as such. What I have heard is that they found loopholes in taxi laws around the world and employed a global army of lawyers exploit those loopholes.
At least in the USA, livery workers were required to have a “medallion”, which is essentially an onerously expensive license with the stated purpose of restricting competition to the point of profitability for those workers. There was no loophole, and it was ridgidly enforced.
Then, Uber came in and started violating that law so flagrantly that governments seemed stunned into inaction. The government corruption comes in where they then decided not to enforce those rules on Uber for some reason around the same time Uber aggressively contributed to political campaigns around the world.
I went down this line of discussion to point out that Uber is not a good example of organic business success that started out financially underwater. Their ethics or lack of them is an aside to the discussion, but agreed, they are unrepentant scumbags.
Got it, thanks. My memory of how Uber was able to gain a foothold was a little different, but my memory of it was patchy anyway. My recollection was that they essentially said that Uber was not a taxi service. They sold it as just regular people offering to “share” a ride with someone else to an area that they were going to anyway. I have no doubt that heavy political contributions were part of their arsenal in their attack on the taxi industry and regulations, so I agree that this was government corruption. But I also recall that they also had armies of lawyers fighting at every level of government around the world to ram through the idea that this wasn’t a taxi service and shouldn’t be subject to taxi regulations. Maybe my memory is more patchy than I thought, or perhaps both things were true - government corruption and a legal war allowed them flourish.