As a Libertarian I find this downright revolting. Unions and government working together against progress and free market forces. It does nothing to improve quality of service or to allow competition to lower costs. It is simply repugnant. When will people realize that unions --and those in government who favor and feed them-- are helping destroy this country from the inside out?
As a liberal I find libertarians downright revolting. When will these society supported and overwhelming rich (or "going to be rich") technical males realise that the government created the industries they worked in through decades long investment where the free market failed to do so. When will they realize that their entire philosophy centers around a sociopathic psychological bias (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis) and should essentially be known as a little more than a psychological disorder? When will they understand that free markets are not natural phenomena but the artificial creation of governments for the benefit of society and subject to the corrupting influences of market participants which turn most free markets into cartels without the pressure of regulation holding it back?
Whoa, you should at least steelman libertarian beliefs before you assault a strawman position.
Anyway, government is also responsible for creating cartels and monopolies, some of which lot of people justify. For example, patents should be granted to people for the purpose of encouraging innovation. However, it's more like granting a legal weapon to beat competitors into submission. The AT&T for example, wages war against the telephone independents using their patents.
How do you prevent governments from simply becoming the lackeys of rent-seeking corporations? I had no fricking clues. Those libertarians seem to think elimination is the answer.
I don't think elimination is reasonable. I do think that massive reduction in, numbers, reach and powers is.
As and example: I don't want to be at war with ANYONE. I don't want my government to have the power to unilaterally start them or get involved in them. If there's conflict it should be US, the people, who vote on these things. Why? Because these kinds of things can and will affect us, our children and their children. I don't want a vote-grabbing whore to be able to make those decisions.
War is just one example of what I see as government over-reach. It happens to be one of the best examples that everyone can easily understand.
Look at the history of the World Wars. Government started them. Governments. Not people. Tens of millions of people died. Imagine the entire population of California, Florida, Illinois, New York state, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas killed off. Everyone dies. That's probably less people than those who died during the World Wars. Isn't that sickening? You an imagine that, right? Well, governments started these wars. Not the people who died. Not their kids.
We've become overly permissive with those who govern us. They get away with, almost literally, murder. Not sure what will stop it or change the course.
I've never known a government to start a war. I've known people that make up a government to start one, however.
> We've become overly permissive with those who govern us.
We are not qualified to decide how we are governed, but we are qualified to start a war?
> I don't want a vote-grabbing whore to be able to make those decisions.
So who should make the decision? Only those that vote?
> Not sure what will stop it or change the course.
Definitely not with flame-induced rants like this. You choose words precisely to evoke emotion. Rather than approach this rationally, you hide behind passion, and hope that anyone reading this will be to emotional one way or another to understand what you are trying to say.
In every way, you are acting the part of the vote-grabbing whore you so disdain.
That's seriously splitting hairs. By extension you are saying "I don't know anyone in government who started a war they simply signed a piece of paper giving authority to other humans to start killing another group of humans and the money to do so."
Wars only destroy so when no one is threatening you in any serious way engaging in them is crazy.
No, it's not. And by extension, I'm saying anything of the sort.
OP keeps using the word government and then people, as if the two are distinct and different. It's a technique to make you ignore the fact that the government isn't some other being. It's made up of people.
Treating the government as some alien entity is a political tactic used to frighten people.
> Wars only destroy so when no one is threatening you in any serious way engaging in them is crazy.
That's a rather naive look, and ignores the own premise set forth by the OP I was responding to (in his case, the people should decide).
He's under the belief that the people wouldn't have supported war with Iraq (despite overwhelming support in 2003 for the war).
So, I'm not sure what you are really trying to say? On one hand, the OP says we should attack regardless of a direct threat. On the other hand, you say we should only attack unless we are seriously threatened (and the will of the people be damned). Maybe you think we should be seriously threatened and require that people support the war? This would of course require that people be told how the threat is seriously threatening them.
Ok well it seems like you are confusing the concept of society and government. They aren't the same thing.
By serious threat I really mean someone is attacking you actively. No sure how you would ever seriously think Iraq could injure the United States. They had to tell quite a few lies to convince people of that.
>"By extension you are saying "I don't know anyone in government who started a war they simply signed a piece of paper giving authority to other humans to start killing another group of humans and the money to do so."
That seems to be his point; at any time one of those people (read: politicians) could have said, "I ain't signing this".
It was down to the individual decisions of people, not some mysterious enigma labelled government.
Right but we haven't really learned anything by saying that. It's like saying that Germany didn't invade Poland in 1939 but rather a collection of humans carrying guns and some driving tanks wandered into what was called in some parts "Poland". We have not really advanced the argument or our understanding by breaking it down like that.
> We have not really advanced the argument or our understanding by breaking it down like that.
Breaking it down by saying:
"It's like saying that Germany didn't invade Poland in 1939 but rather a collection of humans carrying guns and some driving tanks wandered into what was called in some parts "Poland"."
Because I've never heard anyone seriously break it down like that. Rather, I hear it like so: Germany invaded Poland.
So, to contend: "We have not really advanced the argument or our understanding by breaking it down like that." ignores the very relevant fact that it's never really been broken down like that.
Regardless, that ruins the argument of breaking it down by US government and the citizens of the US (which is what you are suggesting we do).
If anything, history shows that generalizing or stereotyping people into groups (e.g. "the government" or "blacks" or "the jews" continuing from your example) has done more harm.
The wars we are currently in have not affected me one bit, except perhaps by adjusting prices for various goods by slim amounts that I can afford to ignore. Most people are like me. Saying that wars will affect all of us and our children as well is a huge exaggeration (unless you actually believe the government will attempt to pay down the national debt, which is just preposterous). It doesn't affect most people in any noticeable way, which is verified by how most people don't care.
If we weren't in all of these wars, we could afford to cut your tax rate in half (and every other federal tax rate) without changing anything else. That's equivalent at least an instant 10% raise, maybe more depending on your tax bracket.
If you believe that the US government determines the tax rate based on anything remotely related to the amount that it spends, I just don't know what to say to you. Did your taxes really increase by 11% when the wars started?
He means that the military engine that keeps us constantly able to fight these wars is expensive. If we did not fight foreign wars, we would have a much smaller military budget. The would mean that federal government spending would be lower, which would reduce the need to revenue. While it is true that the federal government finances part of its huge budget with debt so sudden increases are not immediately felt, they do translate into increased interest payments which must be financed by revenue, and again, there is also the need to pay for the general level of power and readiness to fight between wars.
Now that it's more clear what the poster meant, you should be able to think of something to say.
But even eliminating the wars, spending is higher than revenue. And historically, we can see that the government does not finance its spending with revenue, it does so with borrowing, and it pays back its loans with more borrowing. Lower spending does not reduce taxes, nor does increased spending raise them. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts.
Yes, the wars contribute to spending but it's not being argued they are the entirety of excess spending.
We do perpetually borrow but our finance charges steadily increase, and not all of that is able to be deferred. The deferral will eventually have to be repaid or there will be an enormous disaster. It's actually worse in the long run than steady expenses.
To use an everyday example, it is similar to saying a laptop is not expensive because it's on a credit card and the credit card payments are financed with another credit card and so on. The laptop eventually costs more for using such a scheme.
Sure, but my point was that in the meantime, payments aren't actually higher, which is what was originally asserted. IOW, the average citizen such as myself isn't materially affected by this ballooning debt.
Governments are the equilibrium that comes from the reality that people will do anything, including violence, to get what they want and everyone will always have unmet desires. Wars are a disturbance in that equilibrium. I think what will eventually make governments behave better is a free market in governments and ease of movement. You basically want the entire world to be so interdependent on each other that the incentive for war is far worse than the incentive for business. It would be horrible for China to attack the USA at this point for example.
You point out yourself that the US government is a vote collecting machine, which is how the incentive system was created in the first place. The entire money system is a social contact that organizes human behavior for example. Creating social contacts that people will follow to organize humanity is very difficult.
You can't eliminate corporations altogether. Corporations don't magically come into existence as a result of evil forces. People create them in order to get something done. Sometimes the something is good, sometimes it's not. Y Combinator is a corporation.
You also can't eliminate the human desire to rent-seek. You can constrain it, but you can't eliminate it. And it's there just as much in a government as it is in a corporation.
The reason people are choosing Uber is because the taxis suck. It's really that simple.
Uber costs more and people will pay it. They pay it because you know what you are getting and you know that if you dont get it then the company will make it right. Uber is the most transparent company I've been able to find when it comes to auto transport. They give you a receipt with the route and the fare. Every component of the tally is right there for you. They even round down the total.
What Taxis are pissed about is that there is a viable competitor for the BEST fares. Taxis dont want to upgrade their product but they want to keep the top of the market. I say good riddance. If every taxi in DC went out of business I wouldn't shed a single tear.
> The reason people are choosing Uber is because the taxis suck. It's really that simple.
It isn't really that simple, of course.
Taxis may indeed generally suck in some places. They certainly don't suck in others.
Some places with non-sucky-in-general taxis: Japan, the U.K. (in Japan, the main issue with taxis is that they can be expensive ... but of course, that's one area where Uber apparently sucks as well...).
Indeed, pretty much every place I've ever ridden in a taxi, the service has been absolutely fine. Granted NYC taxi-drivers can be a bit annoying (e.g. spending the entire ride talking at loud volume on their cellphone, getting pissy if you they think you didn't tip enough), but I've never had an actual issue.
Industry level unions are essentially no better than the lobbyists used by multinational corporations - both attempt to enforce cartel pricing in the markets of their paying constituents via political action. Regulation must allow entry of new entrants if safe to do so for both consumers and drivers - competition is good if regulated correctly.
As someone who likes to develop nuanced views of issues outside of simpel labels like 'libertarian' or 'liberal' I find both of you revolting.
Seriously, just say what you think. There is no need to identify your party affiliation before making a comment. It just decreases the likelyhood that I will positively associate with that label.
To bring the discussion back to the actual topic, how do you apply those thoughts to the situation at hand?
What are your thoughts on this particular case? I'm not really interested in what you think about libertarians in general. (Frankly I think the libertarian angle here is misplaced, though I still find attempts to slow Uber's growth to be very unfortunate)
Unions are market participants in this case attempting to enforce cartel structures on an entire industry for their paying constituency - no better than the RIAA. Regulations should break this but not at the cost of consumer protection - cost cutting, not safe etc.
My issue is not with the unions, but with the governments that afford them special favors. If it weren't the unions in this case (Is it even?) it would be the taxi corporations themselves.
I think it is therefore important to focus the criticism not on unions but on the politicians themselves who try to get in Ubers way.
Please speak carefully. You called an entire set of people revolting, but the person who you called revolting only said a specific practice was revolting. There is a big difference between disliking something a person does and disliking a person intrinsically, or worse, a large group of people. I hope you didn't mean it but of you did it is a bigoted thing to say.
Whenever I hear a libertarian speak a strong visceral reaction occurs, which I believe would be a akin to the one that I would've probably found with the Nazi party, the Communists or a racist Southerner (i.e. listening to an insane ideologue talk).
It's no different to the reaction he probably feels with those who don't share his "grand world view no one understands but it's coming you sheeple" shtick.
It is not bigotry to point out obvious flaws in ridiculous and damaging ideologies - it's merely interesting to note the amount of controversy I appear to have drummed up.
What I find even more interesting is how many libertarians are often atheists, understand science/engineering and try to follow rational paths (this part is their downfall).
Problem is most of their "rational" foundations are just way off - i.e. the world is fair, people will act like you want them too, free markets bring all the good to the world, markets are efficient, private industry doesn't corrupt etc.
>most of their "rational" foundations are just way off - i.e. the world is fair, people will act like you want them too, free markets bring all the good to the world, markets are efficient, private industry doesn't corrupt etc.
I think I see the problem: most libertarians don't believe those things.
Would it be accurate to describe you as believing the government can make the world fair, the government can make people act like you want them too, the government brings all the good to the world, government is efficient, government doesn't corrupt etc.?
I hope you understand my saying you seem similar to how people in those groups you mentioned think about groups of people they dislike. You must see the difference between strongly disliking what someone thinks and disliking the person intrinsically because of what they think. You should not justify it by claiming he treats people like you equally poorly, especially since in this thread he specifically called you "brother" and said he does not find you revolting even though you find him revolting. When you admit to having an instinctive negative reaction to a class of people and then justify it with logical statements, you seem to be a stronger example of cognitive dissonance than the example you gave.
> groups you mentioned think about groups of people they dislike.
I'm sorry - but what?
The groups I stated had core goals that promoted the rights of the strong over the weak (Nazis/Communists - indirectly/Racists/Libertarians - indirectly).
Seeing as I dislike said groups, their ideologies and utilise the veil of ignorance thought framework (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance) to protect the weak (which is what liberals do) - I can't possibly see how you can compare me to them.
Perhaps you're right and I'm perfectly willing to concede that.
Two questions.
How do you know that he wasn't being sarcastic?
Did I ever state that I wasn't subject to cognitive dissonance, irrationality or faulty logic?
My comparison was based on noticing that disliking classes of persons intrinsically was common. Of course you lack the political power to punish them for it and I have no reason to think you would do that since you find both abuse of power equally revolting to disagreeing with you about markets and politics.
How do I know he wasn't being sarcastic?
I don't know, but he has a good-enough track record here. The brother remark could possibly be sarcastic but his emphasis on actions, not the people, seemed sincere since it agreed with his initial post and he couldn't have foreseen your reply.
Did you ever state that you are not subject to cognitive dissonance, irrationality or faulty logic?
No, but you implied dissonance and illogic were rather obvious flaws of theirs and parts of the reason you find them revolting. Obviously you don't think you're perfect, but when you criticize someone about a specific thing to support your disliking them, I have to assume you think you don't do that thing as much unless you also dislike yourself.
You're not a liberal, you're a leftist...a big difference. We've seen what your kind has done to humanity in the last century. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro... You leftists are revolting to humanity.
That's sad brother. I don't find you revolting. Perhaps we disagree. But, revolting? That's a reach.
I happen to think that your view that "When will <snip> technical males realise that the government created the industries they worked in through decades long investment where the free market failed to do so." is flawed in a million different ways.
Virtually nothing government does is done well, efficiently and with true far-reaching vision towards future goals that will benefit all.
In most cases it the results are nowhere near what government expected.
The "invention" of the Internet is one such examples. While the genesis is solidly found in ARPANET not one person in government PLANNED for what we have today. Natural market evolutionary forces made this happen. Lots of entrepreneurs and investors throwing money, blood, sweat and tears into the pot and here we are. If it were up to government we'd still be trying to figure out how to raise taxes to pay for some ridiculous solution that nobody would want. Fortunes were made and lost giving the Internet life. Government couldn't even approach the people and financial investment that went into actually making it. Look at examples like Webvan to see the risks people took back then. Eight hundred million dollars pissed away chasing an idea. Yes, it was a failure, but that's EXACTLY what the free market is about. Some win. Some loose. And we all benefit from those who try.
How about jumping into bullshit wars? How is that working for you? You certainly can't pin that one on private enterprise, can you?
Nah, what needs to realized here is that we are an incredibly capable species that thrives by being challenged. We develop solutions by cooperating towards common goals and, yes, when there are benefits to be had (financial, intellectual, emotional, altruistic, etc.).
Government, at least in the US, has degenerated into a do-whatever-it-takes-to-get-votes organism. All parties. All ideologies. They all want votes to stay in power 'cause it's a sweet ride. That's all they care about. Not you, I or our kids. Nothing else matters. The sooner we realize that and start to figure out how to fix it the better off we will be. Interference with private enterprise is just one side-effect of how these governments are failing us.
I don't really like political labels that much because they don't really represent the person. I tend to use "libertarian" because, well, the other have nearly never represented me. One side is overly religious and the other side can be reminiscent of populist South American dictators that rile-up the masses, give them shit and buy votes. None of it good. I prefer to believe in the individual, the power of self determination and the drive to succeed. I could be wrong, but I think this is far better than some organization telling a startup that they can't disrupt the cab industry because, well, THEY don't want it disrupted.
It's like asking buggy-whip workers if their industry should go out of business in order to allow automobiles to happen. Of course they'll say "no", and the politicians and unions that might represent them would have raise hell to protect them. In the end, protecting that industry would have been a huge mistake.
> The "invention" of the Internet is one such examples. While the genesis is solidly found in ARPANET not one person in government PLANNED for what we have today. Natural market evolutionary forces made this happen
That's an awfully simplistic way of looking at things. How many of those entrepreneurs would have sacrificed and succeeded without the promises and stability provided by some government regulation and oversight? To say it was all "evolutionary" is like saying life on Earth owes nothing to oxygen, as today's lifeforms are the products of just evolution
promises and stability provided by some government regulation and oversight
Government properly has the role of defending its citizens, protecting private property rights, and providing stability through the rule of law and due process. Societies don't function in complete anarchy, and even libertarians allow for some amount of government. Beyond those basic responsibilities, things tend to go off the rails pretty quickly whenever the government tries to "do" anything.
Go start a non-trivial business and then tell me what you think about government.
The only people who think that government interference is not part of the problem are those who either work for the government, depend on it for a living, benefit from their rulings, actions and handouts or have never started a business and came face-to-face with the beast.
Why isn't your all-knowing government moving swiftly to fix the software patent problem? What are they waiting for?
I'll tell you why: It keeps thousands upon thousands of government employees (voters) employed and it brings-in money, lots of money. In the meantime they, through inaction, cause untold carnage and damage our ability to innovate at full speed.
Also, in the accounting politicians engage in patent issues don't offer them any advantage because they are not going to gain significant votes by doing anything in that segment.
I mean, Google had to put what, twelve billion dollars into patents just so they could continue to exist in the smart phone market? Do you know what a company can do with twelve billion dollars? Talk about jobs and innovation.
As a software entrepreneur you have to live in fear of some asshole ruining your life because our brain-dead government granted them a patent on the pink sliding button you happen to be using.
Stability? Tell that to the Ambassador who got killed Libya. Why are we even there? Why are we at war with half the fucking world? Why are we buying friends through foreign aid? Friends that turn on us and, like a drug, we think we can keep buying their loyalty with more money?
That's really brilliant stuff partner. And government owns all of it. Not private enterprise. Not capitalism. Not entrepreneurs. Government. Your all-providing, all-knowing, infallible government.
I am fairly well travelled and speak several languages. When I am abroad sometimes I feel ashamed to be an American. Do you know why? Not because of our people. Just like folks all over the world we Americans are kind, loving, hard-working people who love our families and just want to have a nice life.
No, when I feel ashamed to be an American it is because of the way our government defecates not only all over us but all over other parts of the world. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. Our government has become a beast that behaves badly regardless of who is at the helm. It is a shame. And it is probably time for people who believe blindly in the supernatural powers of government to wake up and see reality for what it is.
I go back to the same thing. If you love government you have to love the good and the bad. You can't pick. Your government (and other governments) started wars that have killed tens of millions of people. Maybe even pushing over a hundred million. Start at World War 1 and do the math. A hundred million people dead. People didn't start those wars. Businesses didn't. Fucking governments did. And tens of millions of people are dead for it. I suppose you are proud and support that too?
Private sector seems pretty enthusiastic about the wars to me...
I agree with libertarians in the sense that I think concentrated power is a bad thing. But I think the idea that an unregulated market would be any better is laughable.
The answer, in my mind, is better regulation, not necessarily less regulation (although I suspect that the second would often follow from the first, but not in the way that libertarians seem to want).
Food labeling, by the way, is an example of good regulation in my book. Nobody gets to tell me what I can or cannot eat (just talking about labeling laws here, I realize there are also laws banning certain foods). But at the same time, nobody can try to trick me, either, at least not without breaking the law and being exposed to liability.
> Private sector seems pretty enthusiastic about the wars to me
Who? Your local baker? The mechanic around the corner? How about the printer? Or the dry cleaner? Apple?
Sure, businesses that make things for the military are going to benefit from wars. It only stands to reason that they might be more pro-war (or pro-conflict) than the local dry cleaner.
Here's the paradox. And it takes a little reasoning.
Who starts wars? Government.
Who benefits from wars. Well, nobody, but let's just say that government contractors do. They make weapons, missiles, bullets, crap. They do.
If you can make so much money making stuff for the war machinery, are you going to bother making stuff for consumer applications? Nope. If you can sell toilets for $1,000 rather than $50 you are going to make radiation hardened toilets. Let the Chinese make the "small stuff".
What happens when you have a war-driven economy then? Well, your consumer products manufacturing base goes to shit. Wages are artificially inflated by the war machine and, very soon, you have to pay a guy $50 per hour to put screws into a VCR. Therefore, the consumer business has to go to other countries where someone can make a VCR for less than we can.
And, what happens over a long period of time of doing things this way? Decades? You completely erode your manufacturing base to the point where you almost can't make anything in the country any more.
So, there you go. The whole business of government being so smart. Government providing everything we need. Government being all-knowing and providing the foundation upon which we will all build our empires. This same government is almost solely responsible for the destruction of our consumer manufacturing infrastructure by creating a falsely inflated military economy that made it impossible to get anything done in this country.
Government is an ass.
If government is responsible for all of our success. If we should thank and revere government for all we have accomplished. Then, we should also hold government responsible for all of our failures. You can't have it both ways. If they make things happen then they own the disasters too.
Mind you, I am not one for complete lack of government or complete lack of regulation. This is where I have trouble with political alignment labels. Saying that you are "libertarian" doesn't necessarily mean that you adhere to the textbook definition of what this might mean today. The same is true of other political views.
Yes, some government is necessary. They need to look after our roads, power grid, ports, etc. The government we have today is far larger than what we probably need.
I use fire in survival situations as an imperfect analogy:
When a fire is the right size it provides, warmth, comfort, security, the ability to cook food, etc. In a very real sense, it "works" with your, not against you.
If it is too small it is useless. In the wilderness you might have to fend-off predators because they will not be deterred by your tiny fire. You might not be able to cook food or sterilize water. A small fire is bad.
If a fire gets too big it is dangerous. It can get out of hand and kill you. Beyond a certain size it actually becomes another threat to your survival. If big enough --and if there's enough fuel around-- it starts to create its own wind and it grows larger and larger, until it consumes everything around it. The fire only cares about itself. Every particle serves the fire and not you. It is actually this huge mass that starts to work against you, not for you.
Our government is too large. It creates its own wind. It is growing larger and larger. We have too many government workers, their corresponding unions, their families and retirees that form a unified voting block that mindlessly supports, well, bigger government. It is quickly becoming a threat to our own survival. It is working against us, not with or for us.
Nobody is proposing that we have no government and live in total anarchy. Just like the small fire, that would be dangerous. What we do need is a government of the right size and mindset. We have not had that for decades.
Nope. Uber has been experiencing friction purely and exclusively at the hands of government. A government that caters to the unionized (or collectivized --however you want to put it) taxi groups that are intent on protecting an industry that is in obvious need of disruption. Politics has EVERYTHING to do with this problem. It is not a technical problem at all.
Isn't it reasonable, then, to ask why it is that government is allowed to interfere with progress this way?
If you want to accuse me of hijacking a thread to promote my political views, so be it. I don't see you offering any sort of an explanation or solution for what Uber are running into.
This is no different than what Boeing run into with the NLRB from the standpoint of a government body's interference with industry and progress.
I love how "trolling" is the universal accusation levied when one has no logical way to present a rational position of any kind. Hey, I'll admit that not everything I say might be on point. I am far from perfect. But I think that the elephant in the room is not too hard to identify here.
I asked you a simple question:
How do YOU explain the Uber problem?
I am sure the Uber people would LOVE to discover that government actually isn't their problem and that they should focus their efforts elsewhere.
Maybe the officials are pissed because Uber is using too much Javascript?
No, a discussion about Uber's problems is a discussion about the politics of the deal. That's the issue.
You've spent a few thousand words here that all boil down to 'government is evil' without showing how that relates to the case at hand (It's simple: follow the money) and yet you want me to give you reasons so you can spend a few thousand more words to beat down whatever it was that I might have to say on the subject with more anti-government rants.
Because it continues to frame the debate in terms of the ggps choosing, which have no bearing on the case.
"A government action is wrong/misguided/favors some party and hinders some other"
Does not automatically lead to
"Government is bad".
You can only debate that if you are prepared to take a step back and to list the relative merits / detractions from having some government regulation some of the time and then to try to apply those to the case at hand.
In this case I figure some special interests are being hurt and some particular individuals use their political influence to serve their ends. That does not say anything pro/con the government as an institution, it says something about the particular individuals involved. See Airbnb vs the established hospitality industry, the RIAA/MPAA vs a lot of other entities and a whole slew of examples too numerous to list here.
The one thing that you might extract as a rule is that special interests influencing politics is a bad thing, but in a country where companies are allowed to directly influence politics that is pretty much to be expected.
> In this case I figure some special interests are being hurt and some particular individuals use their political influence to serve their ends. That does not say anything pro/con the government as an institution, it says something about the particular individuals involved.
Exactly! With the exception that, yes, it does say a lot about government as an institution.
A government mature enough to understand that it should not meddle with the competitive forces in markets should take a position of non-interference. It should have the balls to tell even those with political influence --as you termed it-- to go pound sand.
Ultimately, the decision to go after Uber. The decision to attempt to CHANGE LAWS in order to restrict or destroy their business model rests upon one or a group of government actors. Without their agreement to interfere with Uber's business in favor of the taxi industry none of this would be happening. It is government. It is not people who "use their political influence". Government becomes the gating element that enables discriminatory action against interests of an industry that evidence seems to show is in dire need of disruption.
I don't buy my children ice cream every time they ask for it. No matter how much they kick, scream or cry for it. It's about being the adult in the room.
I'll tell you why government agents help the taxi industry rather than Uber. In their political accounting they have no votes to gain by favoring Uber and a lot to loose by letting Uber function freely. Uber has no political value in terms of votes and other political contributions. That's the America we live in today.
Murray Rothbard's book, The Ethics of Liberty, is about how all the functions of government could be performed by the free market. He talks about roads, utilities, etc.
When I travel, I often think about how the country would be different if government did not build the roads. I think you would probably have a fewer roads, less sprawl, and more density because each road would only be built if it were, for some entrepreneur or land owner, the best investment opportunity.
I agree with your fire analogy. Could have done without the "all-knowing government" hyperbole, though. That just makes you sound like a wacko and detracts from your otherwise-valid points.
I like the fire analogy too. It tends to make people think. It came out of a political conversation while camping and tending to the fire.
> Could have done without the "all-knowing government" hyperbole, though.
Maybe I should have put that into quotes. It was intended as sarcasm. In other words, I am sort-of echoing what proponents of a government-centric, government-driven society might think of the government.
I lived ten years in Argentina. Some of those while they had de-facto dictators and military rule. People in the US who are in love with the concept of more government don't understand just how large and dangerous that fire can become.
I agree with your sentiment that software patents need fixing, however some level of patent-like protection needs to be put in place - thus government interference is necessary. A completely deregulated system would spurn innovation, because everything would be copied at the drop of a hat.
As for your foreign policy beliefs - the US needs to be involved with the rest of the world because they have the potential to cause us serious harm (either in a real war or through terrorist attacks). Thus, as with patents, some level of intervention is necessary. A completely isolationist policy would come back to haunt us at some point. How much intervention is necessary is a matter of opinion and debate.
Go start a non-trivial business and then tell me what you think about government.
How non-trivial would you like? Many of the really non-trivial business ventures in history were started and run by governments at first, as they were simply too risky as private ventures.
Personally I think right-wing libertarianism is just basically what happened when conservatives started having to power-share and so they realised that they were no longer in sole control of government, which they really hate, so some of them decided it must be overthrown. Then they realised that the people they were now most closely aligned with are hippy anarcho-syndicalists, and out of the result of the ensuing nervous collapse and confusion, the modern libertarian movement was born.
[edit] I got thinking about what happens when you cross conservatives with anarchists and got an image of dishevelled mud covered people who are mistrustful of interference from the government, but with lots of guns and land and money. And I suddenly realised that the image in my head strongly matches most members of the UK aristocracy. I bet Liz sings Sex Pistols songs in the bath while scrubbing shit off her toenails after scrubbing out the horses.
> through decades long investment where the free market failed to do so.
What free marked failed to do? Create a taxi service? Gimme a break. Literally, if govt created a Manhattan project or Apollo doesn't automatically mean that they have to regulate everything else, including taxis and color of water in my toilet.
Man, I know what I'm talking about - I've lived for 40 years in the country which was built exactly as you want it to: government regulates _absolutely_ everything. This country used to be one of the superpowers of the world, and then it disappeared. It didn't lose in the war, nobody occupied it, it just broke down under its own weight. One day it just ceased to exist.
I thought HN people knew better than to apply broad stereotypes, however flattering, to groups as large as "HN people". (Your broader point is right, of course, but I'm not one to pass over an opportunity for recursive meta-kvetching.)
So people like Bastiat, Menger, Mises, and Rothbard all have the same sociopathic bias that made them write encouraging peace, trade, and cooperation for mutual benefit?
See, I think comments like that are why libertarians are marginalized. There is such a thing as thinking someone is both incorrect and coming from a good place with the best of intentions.
I feel that insight has been buried somehow in recent years.
Like it or not we are indoctrinated. Religion and politics are two or the most prominent examples of this. It takes a certain kind of person to move outside your own mind, if you will, and take a fresh and unbiased look at some of these subjects.
I don't mean this to suggest that this makes one superior in any way. I am simply speaking about a fact. You can't evaluate religion without moving outside of it for your evaluation. As an atheist I had to move outside the indoctrination of nearly to decades of growing up in the christian faith in order to see it differently.
And so, as we evaluate and discuss politics you'll come across people who --no matter what-- are attached to an ideology and there's nothing you can do to change that. They have to choose to open their minds to a conversation and an honest evaluation of where they stand.
In many ways Romney was absolutely right in stating that 47% of voters will vote for Obama no matter what. What he neglected to say is that, for other reasons, 47% will vote for him no matter what. Those of us in the middle can be tough bunch because we don't buy into the indoctrination and dare to want to look at the facts every so often.
I am certainly not right about everything and I know that some of my opinions might be critically flawed in many ways. I've always appreciated learning from others --and I have, a lot.
Huh? This has nothing to do with unions. DC does not have a particularly strong or notable union in the taxi industry. The lobbyists fighting Uber are almost certainly paid for directly by the small number of large cab corporations operating in DC--not a labor union.
I guess we can debate the merits of unions, but it has nothing to do with the fight over Uber in DC. The guy mentioned elsewhere in these comments who was arrested for trying to outright bribe the taxi commission? He wasn't a union boss, he was trying to buy favors for his own business.
The issue with Taxis, in particular, is that they need to be regulated in some way. When hiring a taxi consists of standing on the curb with arm extended, while someone ducks out of traffic to pick you up, there is very little negotiation that can be done. It makes sense that, within a city, the economics of a taxi transaction be defined in advance.
That said, I fully believe Uber should be allow to do its thing. A transaction initiated by Smartphone App allows the passenger sufficient ability to consent to whatever deviation from "standard" terms the driver may provide.
It's union politics which gets their legislation passed. No one would support price-raising taxi cartels if the question weren't coated with rhetoric about wages and welfare.
Buying solar power from residential users is usually a loss to the utility (hence other ratepayers). Especially when they want to sell at retail electricity rates rather than wholesale -- which is what net metering essentially does.
There's a lot of data pointing to the idea that even 'natural monopolies' benefit from competition. IIRC, Lubbock Texas has two hydro companies and Lubbock and other residents of two hydro company towns enjoy on average 20% lower rates.
Certainly employees should be able to freely associate into unions, however like many groups unions have both positive and negative results.
Some people feel that the positives outweigh the negatives and some feel the negatives outweigh the positives. I feel that unions have historically been very positive.
In more recent years I think they've hindered progress for example in Vancouver up until the 80s it was required that every container was unloaded and reloaded simply to ensure jobs rather than letting consumers enjoy the efficiencies created by gantry cranes and containerized shipping.
Like anyone else unions use their power for both good and bad. From the perspective of their members I can understand how reloading containers would be a good thing, but from the perspective of anyone who bought goods that were shipped through the port of Vancouver I would see it as wasteful.
I see nothing wrong with bashing unions for the things they do which are destructive to society at large. I'm not sure what I'd think of a person who thought that unions had never done anything bad.
"for example in Vancouver up until the 80s it was required that every container was unloaded and reloaded simply to ensure jobs rather than letting consumers enjoy the efficiencies created by gantry cranes and containerized shipping"
... Where one other option would have been to accept the new tech in exchange for paying for education of those who have a useless job due to new technology - ie. employer gives up some of the monetary efficiency benefits for a limited number of years to reduce/reorganize the workforce responsibly.
But I guess that would mean the end of the union and its personnel overhead, and the union would have to use its power for such an agreement instead of that unload/reload stunt.
I just can't imagine being satisfied with a job that I know is utterly useless and just kept around to keep me working.
I'll completely accept that some specific unions, almost always in concert with bits of government, get captured by organised crime in some places and then the market is then manipulated to serve neither the members of the union, or people represented by the government. This depends completely on the union and the government we are discussing however.
I would also accept that this may be partly the case in this instance, given the behaviour. [edit] Though I find it less likely after having read eli's brief comment on the matter.
That does not mean that unionism itself is the problem, but rather the culture of certain unions. In the same way that just because certain companies act badly doesn't mean that all do.
Was thinking about this. If I ran a union for taxi drivers and Uber came to my city, I would just make sure that the union was open for sedan drivers to join as well.
And you don't think corporations themselves lobby government entities? It is a little silly to generalize this down to unions. The problem is government influence, not who did the influencing.
There are legitimate reasons for the taxi regulations and the taxi monopoly.
Why does every article about some regulatory body/union overstepping have to turn into a platform for some aspie libertarian rant about regulation/unions in general?
This is why we can't have nice things. In Europe, people can complain about one bad union or one bad regulation without people turning it into a screed about unions or regulations in general.
Yes, when your business is gated by a staggeringly powerful and wholly unaccountable entity, it's in your self-interest to get on their good side, regardless of the underlying ethics involved. Ric Romero has more at 11.
In libertarianism, presumably labour unions are free to flourish and do what they like as organisations in a market free of government intervention.
Remember also that the history of labour unions predates their acceptance by government by a long margin. Trying to banish them or remove government support, or even as Adam Smith noted, making forming one a crime punishable by execution, does not seem to have stopped the formation of unions throughout history. So I don't think their existence is down to government, except in the reactive sense.
"What unions seem to be asking for is governmental protection from the free labor market. They are attempting to collude with government to force workers to pay up or lose their jobs. Voluntary union membership is a fine thing. Forcing people to pay for membership to a club they do not want to join as a condition of employment is not in the best interest of freedom and liberty."
Sorry, but no, you must have right to work laws confused with something else. The link you posted has nothing to do with the Libertarian Party, even a comment points out that the Libertarian Party has "not adopted a plank in favor of Right to Work laws" and that the column is "the opinion of the author".
I quote from your link:
> “We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union.”
Right to work laws prevent employers from mandating joining a union. To support right to work laws would be to deny the freedom of contract between an employee and a worker. Your freedom of association from the government gives you the ability to choose among employers who may or may not force you to join a union. And if you get a job for a business that does not mandate union membership, you can still join a union, as that is an exercise of freedom of association.
That is an inaccurate blanket statement. Some libertarians, such as myself, actually can be pragmatic. (I can't say I like right to work laws, but I think they are necessary so long as unions, which I think are natural and legitimate market phenomenons, are weak)
Edit: Right-to-work laws are not what I thought they were. What I meant to convey is that I am opposed to At-will Employment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)so long as unions are weak.
I think it's fair to say libertarians do not support right-to-work laws on principle, because the freedom of contract is used to justify dozens of other positions in their ideology. You cannot logically be a libertarian and support right-to-work laws.
Can you find a single local libertarian party or recognized libertarian organization that supports right-to-work laws? Can you find enough to challenge my "blanket statement"?
I was mistaken. What I meant to convey is that I do not support At-will employment as long as unions are weak.
(I believe the power of unions has been artificially weakened and corrupted by government interaction. Therefore I self-describe as libertarian, despite liking unions and disliking at-will employment. I concede that my politics are likely at odds with most self-described libertarian politicians.)
Putting aside the libertarian party I think FA Hayek is as libertarian as anyone in history and he supported right to work laws. Such laws make some contracts invalid and that's the extent to how they really operate.
I can't say I like right to work laws, but I think they are necessary so long as unions, which I think are natural and legitimate market phenomenons, are weak
I think you're confusing right-to-work laws with something else. Those prohibit private contracts which require union membership. In effect, they limit the monopoly power of large unions. (?)
To expand on this: The basis of a libertarian argument in favour of right-to-work laws would be that the employer-employee relationship should have just those two parties and be free from outside interference from another party (the union).
Reminds me of the gang theory of politics, that the definition of the government is whoever are the current most dominant gangsters. I find this is not necessarily a good general model, but for certain specific circumstances it can be pretty accurate.
As a business strategy, this kind of brinkmanship wouldn't make me sleep well at night.
Basically Uber goes into a city, hires drivers, outfits them with equipment and starts operations. And for what it's worth, the service is awesome.
By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice and want to do something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-competetive and they've turned the public against them.
It's clever, but I can't help but think they'll end up with a situation soon that doesn't end up working out in their favor.
So Uber should pass out flyers to all competitors before it moves into a town?
As long as good ethics are used, it is called business competition and is generally a good thing. Do you think Uber is doing anything unethical? From the parent link, it appears not, and some of the rules Uber pointed out seem arbitrary and downright anti-competitive.
What really pisses me off is when people try and use legislation as a competitive advantage. That is unethical and it does make them look like your description: "By the time the city & existing cab and livery drivers notice and want to do something about it, they've look like the bad guys, are anti-competetive and they've turned the public against them."
Uber is doing this expecting the cities and existing players to get pissed off and try to stop them. And then they publicize the anti-competetive nature of it.
That's their strategy. Get local news to write about how the city & cabbies are trying to shut them down. It's great marketing.
And it benefits Uber not to talk to local government prior to launching as long as they follow the letter of the law.
This is a genius strategy. But if I were the CEO, it would cause me stress that all of my drivers in a given city might be forced to not work indefinitely because I'm not getting the OK first. Maybe that won't happen.
No other business has to ask the city if the city is planning on changing the laws to shut them down. Why do you expect Uber needs to do that? The fact that changes to laws are being proposed in order to shut Uber down proves that Uber is perfectly legal under the current laws, which means Uber is well within its rights to open up shop without asking permission. In fact, if Uber were public and I was a shareholder, I'd be pretty pissed-off if Uber actually asked for permission first, because that's just asking to be shut down.
Any sort of disruptive business will get lots of pushback and anticompetitive pressures from the existing incumbents. There's no reason why Uber needs to make it easier for someone else to block them from operating.
I think just like alecdibble, you're missing the point. sudonim isn't commenting on the ethics or legality of Uber's strategy, but putting him/herself in the Uber CEO's shoes and imagining the stress associated with executing on a strategy that depends on pissing powerful people off.
Again, it's a brilliant strategy, but might be a stressful experience if you're on Uber's side of the table.
Why should they be expected to "talk to local government" before starting? What other businesses have that expectation?
And what good could it possibly do? As far as I can tell, giving prior notice (though I think the idea that Uber could move in "stealthily" is kind of silly. They are hiring professional drivers from those cities, surely that hiring process attracts some attention.) could only harm them.
You call it a marketing ploy. I see it simply as a reaction to anti-competitive behavior. What should Uber do? Not make a big deal about it? You really think they designed their business model just to bait cities to ban them so they can get a little "free press"?
I think that if a business is trying to get another one shutdown using any other method than simply outperformance, that is a story that deserves to be on the news. It shows that there may be unethical or even illegal actions on the parts of legislators.
I might understand if the Taxi drivers were fighting back using better business practices-cheaper prices, better marketing, actually being able to guarantee taxis, an iphone app of their own, etc.
In some places, such as Manhattan, taxis actually are better than Uber. Because the traffic in Manhattan is so high that it usually takes less time to hail a taxi than to wait for your Uber to arrive.
But in DC they're not. They're fighting back purely by trying to pass legislation to prevent better companies from offering a superior service. In those cases, the old, unreliable, inconvenient taxi industry 100% deserves to fall.
Although every time I've attempted to use it in the last 48 hours, they've all been full. I think it's because they're offering $25 in taxi credit (presumably to encourage taxi drivers to join up).
Isn't that what a disruptive business is all about? You can't replace an old business model with entrenched interests by asking "please" as far as I know...
Part of the problem is that the "disruptive" businesses (by design) often don't spend time thinking about or solving the difficult problems in an area, especially by coming up with working solutions to the problems that caused people to call for regulation in the first place. Many regulations can probably be replaced with something better, but they were often initiated by real problems, and it's important to understand what those problems were, and figure out how to avoid them or sidestep them. Many "disruptive" businesses don't have the historical knowledge or skills to do so, and are hoping they can just close their eyes and ignore the problems, which tends to lead to short-term success, but medium-term reoccurrence of similar problems.
You can see that with AirBnB, which I think is based on a good idea, but also utterly fails to deal with many of the actually hard problems in the space—those that involve things other than operating a website. Real-world problems led to hotels being regulated in the first place, such as health/safety and noise problems, and so far AirBnB hasn't done much to convince me that they even understand the problems in that space, let alone how to address them.
I'm a big believer in the fallacy of Chesterton's fence, so I actually agree with what you're saying. My point is that disruptive businesses serve as the 'reset' button for these industries. The problems get ignored at first, then rediscovered, and finally re-solved in a (hopefully) better way. Eventually, the cycle comes full circle, and the disruptors become the disrupted.
It may not be the most efficient system in the world, and there are definitely casualties along the way, but it does seem to work more often than other approaches (at least that I'm aware of... would love to know about other approaches that have a similar/higher success ratio).
It's forced deregulation by circumventing the rules.
One interesting argument is that deregulation increases the supply of drivers hence making them inefficient. As they are inefficient the prices increase. Interesting POV.
However given that the American Medallion system doesn't seem to be working, there aren't enough drivers and a medallion is worth so much, screw that theory.
Uber have hit a nice niche in America where they're taking advantage of over regulation. And the really odd thing is the cities saying Uber is A-OK, they're just idiots. They should deregulate instead of making a special Uber clause, it's bad government. But that's the way it works I guess, the ludicrousness of local politics around the world always makes me sad.
Note that their success isn't really anything about customer obsession, the only reason for their success is because of regulation. You wonder whether that's a happy accident or the entire private car thing is a cover and they're deviously cunning. All respect either way.
Speaking from a country without these sort of onerous regulation where a taxi is a trivial and cheap thing to get in minutes, any city getting rid of the medallions will put uber out of business practically over night.
The problem they'll face is that as grow they will probably put themselves out of business by encouraging mass deregulation, and then they'll be expensive with no value add. Their customer base will dwindle as new customers won't want to pay the premium for a chauffeured car and that'll be the end of it. Probably a good 5-10 years away yet though.
> rid of the medallions will put uber out of business practically over night.
Really?
When I get Uber, I get a great car-ride and an experience. The driver is dressed for business. I don't get:
* some cabbie's chatter
* crappy radio
* some odd smell that I can't describe
* seats without holes
This is what I think of when I get uber. There's nothing to stop taxi's now to compete on the above things. I love Uber because of the professionalism of the drivers. The App that powers it is a nice-have.
It's funny -- except for the seats with holes, I count all of the things that you mention as downsides of traditional taxis among the things I love about traveling by taxi and other public transport through Asia, Africa, and yes, New York and DC.
Then, by all means, continue to use the taxi system.
I find it shameful that there is a defacto-forced monopoly. Another comment hand a link to DC's taxi system about illegal taxis. It seems strange to me that we have regulations on something that... isn't a limited resource.
I can understand enabling regulations for limited resources like electrics or water, but transportation? I'm... boggled to think what benefit comes from a regulated taxi system beyond customer safety? Sure, we should have a registered driver and some customer protection laws, but... a monopoly?
I like the idea of competition to deliver a diversity of goods to a diverse set of markets. I'm glad for Uber because it's changing the game and stirring the status-quo. Sure, it's more expensive, but's it raising the industry which will cut into the regular taxi's margins. I'm optimistic that taxi's average quality will improve to steal away some of Uber's customers.
It's not the fact that they are competing with Uber, it's how. If your way of dealing with a competing business is to pass laws that shut that business down to preserve a monopolistic system, instead of competing on price and quality of service, you are going to "look like the bad guys" no matter what. How would what the city and taxi drivers are doing look any better if they had done it a year ago? How could they have competed in a more reasonable way if they have started sooner?
Non-driver here, so I use taxis and private car services almost exclusively in northern California (My many thousands of trips over 10 years have probably moved from the class of "anecdote" into "data").
I've used Uber a couple times. It's pricey ($49 for a $33 taxi trip) but fantastic for those who can afford it.
Uber is better than taxi's in many ways:
o Taxi will frequently not take a trip if it doesn't like where it's coming from ("Bad neighborhood") - Uber doesn't tell the driver where you are until they accept the trip.
o Taxi will ask where you are going, and decline the trip if they don't like how much they'll make. Uber driver asks you where you are going, after you are in the vehicle.
o Taxi will sometimes take a trip, while they already have one - resulting in 30-45 minutes extra delay - hard to do with Uber when you can see where they are traveling.
o Taxi on the peninsula is usually 30-45 minute wait. Uber is < 15 minutes on average
o Drivers in Taxi's can be somewhat "eccentric" on the peninsula (As in, some of them scare me, they are so crazy). Uber Drivers are professional, rated.
o Vehicles in Taxi's are pretty craptastic sometimes. I've had to have the driver open my door (god forbid we get in an accident) - ubers vehicles professional Sedans.
o Airport Drivers will sometimes try and scam you for a 50% surcharge when they are still "in zone". They even try and pull that on someone like me who flys in and out of SFO on a monthly basis - I can imagine how many just accept it. Uber charges are identified before you book your trip.
o Lots of taxis will not take credit cards, or (try to) charge you a 10% surcharge - some of them would even RETURN to SFO when they discover you don't have cash. Uber is 100% electronic. No cash/credit card required, just your Smart Phone.
I love the electronic receipts, rating on the driver, certainty about when the vehicle is arriving.
On the peninsula, you pay about a 50% premium (or more, depending on demand), which is represented in the much higher quality trip you get.
I think if Uber was prepared to stick with that "premium" market, then the commissions wouldn't have a problem with them. Their concern is that, much like AirBNB was a trojan horse to get into the Renting Apartments/compete with hotels market, Uber is going to start competing with regular taxis - and for someone who has paid > $1mm for a medallion (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-me...) they are going to demand some sort of recompense and/or action be taken.
My guess is that there will be a strong correlation between cost of medallions and the resistance to Uber in any particular market.
What I would love to see, is that TAXI services adopt the uber model of source blind/closest taxi gets the trip/rate your driver/GPS location of Taxi/electronic receipts. It would be good for the industry, good for the customers, and good for the reputable drivers/services.
The only ones who would lose out would be the crappy services, with poorly maintained vehicles, and lousy drivers .
Already had a taxi assuring me the trip from the airport to my place was well under $20, as I had only a $20 bill and no active credit card. I asked him before hand if he was absolutely sure and that I wouldn't be able to pay more. I had 30Kg of luggage so I figured it was a good idea.
When we reached $20 at 70% of the way, he said "so ill bring you to the nearest ATM and you'll pay the diff ok?". I said no. He opened the door. I walked home. With my 30Kg. Yay.
I'd certainly take a non-taxi company whenever I wanna be sure. Sorry for honest taxi drivers.
That's one I've never heard of before. Taxi drivers have a lot of flaws, but they are pre-programmed to take you to a safe-destination. Also - I do a lot of fare negotiation on longer trips (I rarely, if ever, pay meter from anywhere but the airport), and, in 10 years, I've never had a driver back out on a deal.
In particular, on a long fare, say, San Francisco to Mountain View, if it's a slow time with light traffic (weekend afternoons) - I can usually get a $150 trip for $75, and never more than $100.
Excellent post. Perfect example of why government should have nothing to do picking winners and losers as they are doing with Uber. They are trying to protect the mediocre at best. I used to think that the US was about excellence. That striving to be the best at something was actually rewarded. This is one example of how government can interfere to the benefit of the incompetent rather than promoting progress.
As an aside, many of these things you describe licensed cabs doing (refusing to pick people up or drop them off certain locations) is illegal in DC. Perhaps the Taxi Commission would be better off enforcing the rules against its own cabs than trying to keep out competitors.
While those things are rightfully illegal, they are nevertheless a lot more prevalent than most people are comfortable recognizing. Any service which takes pains to eliminate the possibility of discrimination, not merely forbid it, is a welcome addition to the industry as far as I am concerned.
Man...you should go see what happens at Union Station on a weeknight right after 12AM.
It's essentially a free-fire zone on travelers. Taxis violate EVERY SINGLE RULE on fares that are supposed to protect the public.
If the DC Taxi Commission wanted to have a shred of credibility in this issue, they'd tackle that problem FIRST and leave UBER to the people that can afford the fare.
This is great run down of uber. Here in NYC, where cabs are much more common-place I still use uber from time to time. The thing is it's not meant to replace taxis, it's more of a luxury item than anything. When I can't find a cab or just would feel better hopping in a nicer car, I'll use uber to get somewhere. Not to mention that the drivers are more than happy to wait while I run in to a store to grab some beer or whatnot, whereas a cabby would never be ok with that. I'm very happy that they've been licensed in NYC, as it means they will be around for a while.
How is promoting the Uber model better for drivers, if it forces them to pick up customers that are located in places they would rather not drive to and forces them to destinations they would rather not drive to?
As an aggregate model, it would make taxis much more attractive for a lot of people who don't like the uncertainty, smelly cars, crazy drivers, poorly maintained vehicles, and long waiting times. Those people would be much more likely to hire taxis, increasing the business liquidity, reducing the uncertainty for taxi drivers in the business who might go a few hours without a ride. The advantage to drivers, is that an uber customer is identified before they get into the vehicle. They also have the means to pay. The ability to discriminate on source/destination is removed, but, in many taxi regions, they aren't, in theory, allowed to do that anyways.
I'm not arguing that 100% of all the uber rules are an advantage for drivers - in particular, the ability to turn down a $30 cab fare in order to wait for the $70 SFO trip will be to their economic disadvantage, but it will result in a healthier business overall.
Is that really allowed in CA? I know that in both NYC and Boston/Cambridge, a hailed cab can't refuse a destination. In fact, after being stranded in uptown Manhattan for an hour, I now make a point of not declaring my destination till I'm in the cab.
What's "allowed" and what a cab driver will do are two different things, as you've already discovered. Also, on the peninsula in the bay area, you don't really "Hail" a cab, you have to call for one. And, it's while you are calling one, they can decided whether to send one. I've spent several hours at AMC Mercado in Santa Clara waiting for a cab for a short trip, and continually having it confirmed that they are "Waiting for someone to pick up the ride."
>I've spent several hours at AMC Mercado in Santa Clara waiting for a cab for a short trip, and continually having it confirmed that they are "Waiting for someone to pick up the ride."
Which cab company was this? they sound way more reputable than any cab company I've rode with.
man, when I worked on the peninsula, it was maybe an hour walk to the caltrain. Now, they had a free shuttle, but I work late often.
I can walk for an hour, really, it's not that big of a deal, but if I can get a cab within 15 minutes? that would be my preference.
So I call the cab service, they tell me someone will be there in 15 minutes. I call again after half an hour. they say the same thing. I call to cancel the ride and "oh, they are almost there, just a minute"
I mean, if they would tell me that nobody was on it, I'd just start walking. It was pretty frustrating, and I finally stopped even trying, and walked every time I missed the shuttle.
As long as Uber is proving a useful service in a lawful manner, not ripping people off, the the city should let the consumers decide whether they should stay in business.
If they are such a threat to the DC cab industry the cab companies would do well to adopt some of the techniques that are making Uber so successful.
The problem is that the DC cab industry was so corrupt that they ended up heavily regulated. Now those regulations do not allow them to do things that Uber does. The fix isn't to outlaw Uber, but to allow the taxis to compete in the same way.
Well if you are disrupting old established markets then they will have already coated themselves with political armor, that the livery business goes back several centuries its not surprising that this is so. That said, it would behoove more companies that are attacking such markets (music distribution, and publishing come to mind) have a person who does exactly this, they look at public policy and the way it is being manipulated by the 'competition' and work to counteract that manipulation. John Gage at Sun had the title Chief Science Officer but his day to day duties involved understanding government processes, political movers and shakers, and how those processes worked for, against, or neutral with respect to Sun's goals. He was instrumental in getting me access to the NSA when we wanted to ship strong encryption in an interpreted language.
I wonder if the necessary consequence of this is to get involved with lobbyists. Not necessarily to lobby, just to pay them for an understanding of how the local politics work.
This would also be a big bonus to YC, if they managed to provide domain knowledge in this respect. Because what the hell are you supposed to do in a situation like that as a fledgling start-up?
Well, when you're doing things that violate the spirit of the law (if not the letter), I think it's probably wise to invest in some lawyers and lobbyists.
Taxi drivers are heavily regulated already, including rates, posted information, what they can and can’t do and in at least one case how they can bill/accept money. In Boston a taxi driver told me the city mandates they use a city provided credit card method that charges them 8% and holds the money for week.
I'm not for regulation but anyone who's ever been scammed by a driver will appreciate it.
If all the taxi drivers have to live under these regulations, why would a 'private' taxi service be able to skirt them all? Uber should be held to the same standard and we should work on reforming the overall regulations to allow for more innovation for all.
In NYC the taxi commission is in the pocket of the medaillion holders. That's why the recent law to issue more mediallions (2,000 at ~800k each = $1.6b for the city) had to go through the state instead (Albany being less corrupt than anything is mind-boggling), until of course a judge knocked down the law and said only the city could do so.
Only source I could find about revenue is how they added $9.9 million in revenue by increasing the surcharge by 50 cents and recently awarded a $35 million dollar contract to Verifone.
So they must be generating some significant amount of money still.
I'm all for more efficiency, but can these companies who add more efficiency to the economy really suggest they are "creating 1000s of jobs." By definition, if you are making an industry more efficient aren't you taking away people's jobs?
