One day we were summoned into a large conference room. Our CEO was on the speakerphone (I told you this was a long time ago) with an important update on our financial situation.

I think every arsehole in the room puckered. Were we about to be made redundant? No! Far from it. The business had just taken on a massive amount of investment from a prominent Venture Capital fund. The champagne flowed! With this money we could turbo-charge our hiring, build new products, and accelerate our growth.

At least, that's what I thought. In my naïveté, I congratulated our head of sales on the growth of his empire. More money meant more sales staff, yes?

He was glum. "That's not how it works," he explained.

Our large institutional investors had a vast stable of other companies. Each covered a different bit of the tech ecosystem and our advertising business was about to become part of an incestuous web. Every app that the VCs had invested in would now be "encouraged" to use our advertising solution. You don't need a sales team when your customers are your cousins in an arranged marriage.

Similarly, our approved corporate chat tool would be replaced by one from another stable-mate. Who, in turn, would buy advertising from us.

Over the next few months our growth rocketed and almost none of it was organic.

Eventually I left for pastures marginally more ethical than advertising. But I continue to see the same pattern repeat itself.

When you wonder why one social network grows and another doesn't - look at the investors.

For example, I'm sure a lot of Twitter's early growth was organic. But once rich and powerful companies can direct their investments to sign up and route all their customer service / product announcements through there, it exploded. When you have a financial investment at stake, finding ways to boost growth is a priority - and a little mutually reinforced reciprocation goes a long way.

I don't know if Mastodon (and other ActivityPub services) have reached their maximum organic growth. I suspect they have. To be clear, I'm not calling on Mastodon to take on a billion dollars of VC funding. But without sales teams and without a bunch of associated organisations forced to use it, I worry that the Fediverse will hit a natural limit.

And, again, I don't know if that's a bad thing per se - but if you're expecting big companies, governments, and your favourite VC-adjacent celebrities to join, you're likely to be disappointed.

Why didn't the organisers of the concert just sell the tickets at the higher price? Why leave all that profit to be eaten up by scalpers? There are loads of methods for determining an acceptable price for tickets. A Dutch Auction would have started selling tickets at, say, a million dollars each then dropped the price every day until all tickets were sold.

I know, I know! Artists want fans from all walks of life - not just rich ones - to be able to see their show. But when there's a imbalance between supply and demand it seems like money is the simplest - albeit unfairest - way to settle the issue. This is the essence of arbitrage - buy a high-demand commodity at a low price, then sell it for a high price.

Is it unethical to scalp Tay Tay Tix? I don't know. But it got me thinking about what other unethical arbitrage opportunities there are in the world.

A few years ago, scummy startup ReservationHop started making restaurant reservation and then reselling them. Ring up a fancy place, book it out, when people try to get a hot seat, sell them the reservation. Dastardly!

Many years ago, my brother hurt his leg while at a Disney park. Employees rushed to get him a wheelchair - which was nice. The wheelchair queue for all the rides was very short - which was even nicer. Hmmm... Is there an opportunity there? Yes! And Disney shut it down after disabled tour guides sold themselves as queue jumpers.

What if some enterprising soul booked up all the appointments at your GP? Would you pay a scalper to see a doctor faster?

A judge in a fraud case recused themselves because their husband's employer had done work for the plaintiff. Could a company employ the spouse of every judge in a jurisdiction? Could they sell that company on to any rich defendant who needed it?

Plane tickets are another interesting one. What if the people sat in the exit row started a live auction before take-off for the better seats? Would that work on the bus? Wheelchair users have priority over parents with buggies. How about a bunch of disabled people hog the space and charge other passengers if they want to use it?

Even something as simple as queueing for a toilet at a festival. Get to the front of the line and charge people at the back to skip ahead and take your place. There must be an app for that, right?

Anyway, please don't launch a startup for any of these horrible ideas. Do something more socially useful with your time. Like sticking your head in a bucket of cold sick.

While some choices are purely subjective - those light fittings? - other choices are simply illogical.

Let's take water meters. Anyone in the UK can get a water meter fitted for free. The alternative is that the water company literally make up your bill!

"Hmmmm, four bed house. Probably means kids. Lots of baths, I reckon. Bet their washing machine is ancient. Let's charge them loads!"

After receiving the first extortionate bill from Thames Water, I booked a free meter fitting. A chap came one day to assess the suitability of our supply (it was fine) then a few weeks later another guy turned up and spent 30 minutes fitting it.

Our water bills are now 50% lower than they were before.

Virtually no effort, and I'm saving hundreds of pounds per year. Why wouldn't you do that?

It was the same for Gas and Electricity. The previous owners were on what looked like the most expensive tariff possible from British Gas. A few clicks of a mouse and we were switched to a competitor with far cheaper prices.

I know the previous owners had Internet and phone access. I know that they were available during the day to let workmen in as needed. I also happen to know that they were on a fixed and limited income.

So why would people in that situation not engage in one of the few redeeming features of capitalism? Were they too lazy? Did they not know that switching was possible? Did they simply not like money?

I think the reason is that the cumulative effect of choice in every sector of our lives acts as a significant mental tax. The repeated demand that we should "shop around" and "compare the market" and "get the best deal" is incredibly inconvenient for most people.

Every single day we're bombarded with the message that someone, somewhere, is offering a better deal on:

• Car, home, health, travel, insurance.
• Petrol stations.
• Groceries.
• Bank accounts.
• Internet packages.
• Phone line rental.
• Credit cards.
• TV subscription services.
• Gas, electricity, water.
• Gym membership.
• Pension funds.
• ...

And so the list goes on. Is it any wonder that people simply opt-out of this process? Every time my home insurance comes up for renewal, I sigh. It means a couple of hours of my free time comparing prices, negotiating with my current supplier, switching to the new supplier, making sure that I have a copy of all the new details - now multiple that time-sink by every item on that list.

For people without excellent financial skills, it can all be very stressful. Trying to work out the best deal, what the catch is, when the money will be taken, whether prices will go up, is an incredibly frustrating task.

This lack of switching is a recognised problem.

Solutions

The UK is awash with advertising telling people to switch supplier - and, admittedly, counter advertising encouraging people to stay - so I don't think awareness is the issue.

Essentially, there are two options.

1. Abolish Capitalism! This is not without its problems... That said, if every driver is mandated to have car insurance, would it not make sense to have a single player market, perhaps funded through general or specific taxation?
2. Create meta-providers.

Imagine that you signed up to a "meta-provider" of services - home insurance, for example. Once you became a member, the service would automatically switch you to the cheapest deal every day / month / year. No more worrying about slogging through tedious forms - just fire and forget. Like having a very efficient butler.

This is, essentially, how most people treat their investments such a pensions. I'm not a stock-market expert, so I pay a small commission to a professional who (hopefully!) gets me the best deal.

In this hyper connected world, there's no reason why we can't use algorithmic trading robots to turn the tables on predatory capitalism and automatically extract the best value from the market.

If I had the energy, that's exactly the start-up I'd create. An automated service to switch you to the cheapest possible provider at every opportunity. Set up an account once and then never have to worry about whether you're on the best deal again.

Of course, getting people to switch to it is another story...

What if they gave a war and nobody came?

Why, then, the war would come to you!

-- Bertolt Brecht

The current Conservative Government (and their Labour predecessors) are obsessed with the idea of competition. Their theory is that competition lowers prices, improves services, and makes the world more efficient. The free market will arrive at an optimal solution for everything.

In some cases, this is correct. In my own field - mobile phones - we see a tooth and nail fight between companies which has dramatically lowered the price of phones, improved them immeasurably, and created a lot of value in our economy.

But not all services are like this. It turns out that, in some cases, people just don't care about competition.

The energy sector is one fine example. David Cameron recently announced that all energy companies would be forced to put people on their cheapest tariffs.

Why? Surely, as capitalist citizens, we should relish in the choice of dozens of energy providers - each with their own myriad of tariffs? Whenever our bill comes in, we should shop around and get the best price?

This doesn't happen. It turns out that inertia is a more powerful force than capitalism.

• It takes time to compare all the different tariffs.
• The savings make are comparatively small compared to other household costs.
• There is a fundamental disconnect between price and service.

The last is the most important. I can understand why the apples at Sainsbury's cost less than the apples at Tesco.

But my electricity comes through the same wires - no matter the provider. It comes from the same power station, across the same pylons, and works in exactly the same way.

So, how can Company A's prices be radically different from Company B's?

Some Have Choice Thrust Upon Them

The Government appears to be suggesting that every energy provider should be forced to move their customers to the cheapest possible tariff.

This strikes me as an odd move for a Tory Government. They seem to be interfering with private business, forcing households not to engage in competitive behaviour, and are distorting the market. Don't get me wrong, I think cheaper energy bills are a good idea - I'm just surprised that they're doing it this way.

Where does this end?

• Will mobile networks be forced to write to their customers and say "You only used 200 minutes of your 600 minute bundle - we suggest you move to a price plan which is £5 per month cheaper"?
• Will Tesco have to email me to say "On a like for like basis, you'd be better off shopping at Waitrose"?
• Will the Tory party have to send out local council election leaflets saying "Your tax rate would be 7% cheaper under a Lib Dem administration"?

We have a fairly free market for energy (and phones, and shopping) so people are free to compare.

If we are moving to a period where companies' policies are being directed by central government - are the Tories saying that Socialism is better for the British people?