tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

because that's what you did when I questioned the possibility that Uber
might fail in an earlier discussion

you used the spurious argument that some large company (Amazon was it)
had
invested and they wouldn't be investing in a company that might fail.

No, it has the backing of large VC funds,

no you didn't, you named a specific HITech company - thinking more it was
probably Google

which Amazon is not. Don't you
know the difference?

Don't be silly

It is well know that all of the major HiTech companies invest in new starts
ups, separate from their trading operations.

They are awash with money, they have to do something with it.

And I didn't discuss whether might one day fail to repay their investment.

Yes you did - you told me I was an idiot for even considering the
possibility.

What I pointed out was that losing lots of money at this stage in its life
was all part of the business plan, which its investors fully understood
and
supported.

Nope, that wasn't the conversation at all

If you want an example of an over-hyped company with an absurd valuation,
which also loses money hand over fist, look at Tesla.

Oh you agree then, I have been saying that for ages

On that basis you should hold the opinion that none of these billion
dollar
companies can fail because it is 100% certain that all of them have the
backing of some large company or other

No. It just means you don't understand the difference between trading
companies and investment funds.

Nonsense

You clearly said that the company wouldn't fail because some other company
had invested 100s of millions in it, and they wouldn't have done that if
there was a possibility it might fail. And you called me an idiot for
thinking otherwise.

The names of the companies here are irrelevant. The point that you made at
the time stood on its own merits (or not) without them.


That's definitely not the way I remember it. You're going to have to dig up
the thread if you want to pursue this.