[new2this]

>I also think Standard Oil shouldn't exist. In fact, so did the US government in a landmark antitrust case that you may have heard of.

Agreed, but "should/shouldn't exist" wasn't the argument. The initial argument was "if you use this strategy, you're not a real business" which I think is false.

Distasteful, destructive, and something that should be illegal- sure.

Ponzi scheme, doomed to fail, not a real business tactic- no.

[banannaise]

At this point we're both mostly into semantic territory. You focused on the beginning of the statement ("real business"), I focused on the end ("shouldn't exist"). I don't think a business that is only viable due to illegal pricing schemes is a real business, but that's also just semantics.

Speaking of.

> should be illegal

Predatory pricing for the sake of driving competitors out of business to establish dominant market power is illegal, setting aside that the gradual erosion of enforcement means that antitrust law functionally no longer exists in the US.

[passwordoops]

The original argument is "If you can't be profitable without eliminating all the competition by first undercutting them, then jacking up prices on users, then you shouldn't exist"

Standard oil was profitable and they were able to afford undercutting the competition. That maneuver was too gain complete control over a diverse, vibrant market. Gig economy companies have never been profitable, and the only way they can be profitable is to increase prices to the point where consumers will stop using them.

Also, unlike Standard Oil, these unicorns are a Ponzi scheme. They provide a real service, sure. But the only way they were able to provide that service was to keep increasing their private-market valuation, with the next investor saying "I'm in, because next time they raise, it'll be at a higher price". What happens after every one of these gig companies went public? The private investors cash out, and the stock collapses.

In what way is this not a Ponzi?