While there is a lot of genuinely anti competitive behavior in the market (e.g. huge mergers that should never be allowed).
The reality of a lot of “competition” as we tend to describe it in capitalist economics is that someone usually wins. At least for a while. It’s often not related to their core competency or quality either. It’s often about financial leverage, regulatory favors, technical advantages, etc…
For example, Taxis weren’t crushed by Uber because of better drivers, fuel efficiency, or more comfortable rides. It was the challenge of hailing a cab, the regulatory barriers of taxi drivers getting licensed (which Uber just didn’t bother with), commercial insurance, and the ability of Uber to operate at a loss while building their market share. Taxis had a 100 year head start in this competition, and they were pretty much obsolete in a few years. They lost due to competitive disadvantages they didn’t even know they had. And Taxis still exist, they’re just fighting for the scraps left by Uber and Lyft.
I’m experiencing this first-hand with my restaurant. In-house delivery drivers cannot compete with Uber Eats/Doordash/etc. because they don’t need to make money or even break even, don’t have to pay for insurance, and don’t have to deal with liability
One difference, though, is there is going to be a lot of experienced drivers in the workforce when Uber Eats/Doordash/etc. try to jack up prices. I can relatively easily swap to in-house deliveries again, whereas taxis can’t just start back up
While there is a lot of genuinely anti competitive behavior in the market (e.g. huge mergers that should never be allowed).
The reality of a lot of “competition” as we tend to describe it in capitalist economics is that someone usually wins. At least for a while. It’s often not related to their core competency or quality either. It’s often about financial leverage, regulatory favors, technical advantages, etc…
For example, Taxis weren’t crushed by Uber because of better drivers, fuel efficiency, or more comfortable rides. It was the challenge of hailing a cab, the regulatory barriers of taxi drivers getting licensed (which Uber just didn’t bother with), commercial insurance, and the ability of Uber to operate at a loss while building their market share. Taxis had a 100 year head start in this competition, and they were pretty much obsolete in a few years. They lost due to competitive disadvantages they didn’t even know they had. And Taxis still exist, they’re just fighting for the scraps left by Uber and Lyft.
I’m experiencing this first-hand with my restaurant. In-house delivery drivers cannot compete with Uber Eats/Doordash/etc. because they don’t need to make money or even break even, don’t have to pay for insurance, and don’t have to deal with liability
One difference, though, is there is going to be a lot of experienced drivers in the workforce when Uber Eats/Doordash/etc. try to jack up prices. I can relatively easily swap to in-house deliveries again, whereas taxis can’t just start back up