I feel this entire thread has quite missed the point of the question
the way a neutrino passes through a solid object and interacts with
nothing but empty space.
People have talked about microeconomics, gig economies, labour
shifting, bad old days, safety, subsidies, licenses.... but we've
gotten no closer to understanding;
"Why Is a Company That Lost Billions Claimed to Be Successful?"
To answer this one must ask "What is financialisation?" The short
answer is; a system in which the success or failure of a company is of
no relevance to its "value". Under financialised logic it is
absolutely immaterial whether Twitter, Uber or whatever make a
penny. Ever. Or whether any of the stakeholders are served. The rules
of traditional business go out the window. All that matters is the
stock price of a tradable financial entity (a company) based on brand
confidence/perception.
Under that system, Uber is successful so long as the financial market
says it is. When it decides it's not successful, it's not. One has to
realise that a total detachment of political economics and power has
taken place.
People have talked about microeconomics, gig economies, labour shifting, bad old days, safety, subsidies, licenses.... but we've gotten no closer to understanding;
"Why Is a Company That Lost Billions Claimed to Be Successful?"
To answer this one must ask "What is financialisation?" The short answer is; a system in which the success or failure of a company is of no relevance to its "value". Under financialised logic it is absolutely immaterial whether Twitter, Uber or whatever make a penny. Ever. Or whether any of the stakeholders are served. The rules of traditional business go out the window. All that matters is the stock price of a tradable financial entity (a company) based on brand confidence/perception.
Under that system, Uber is successful so long as the financial market says it is. When it decides it's not successful, it's not. One has to realise that a total detachment of political economics and power has taken place.