Good for Uber and Lyft for breaking the law and pushing us out of that local minima. Sometimes you have to harm a few privileged rent seekers to remove coercive monopolies and reduce regulatory capture.
Good for Uber and Lyft for breaking the law and pushing us out of that local minima. Sometimes you have to harm a few privileged rent seekers to remove coercive monopolies and reduce regulatory capture.
We used to have the free for all we're building towards and we regulated to stop it. Why won't history repeat itself?
For instance, some months back I got in an Ola to Delhi Airport. The guy took some crazy long route while pretending he didn't understand my broken Hindi (with very clear street names and pointed directions), and very nearly caused me to miss my flight. I took out the app and made a complaint while waiting for my flight. When I landed I got an email about my money being refunded.
How effective do you think it'll be to try and make use of my government provided consumer protections? http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_transport/Trans...
Another wonderful thing we are getting from the regulators - protection against drivers of the wrong ethnic group. Imagine how terrible it would be to be driven by a Bihari? http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-shiv-sena-defends-marat...
(Similarly, in the US, try to flag a taxi while black. Uber solved this problem, have the US regulators?)
We stopped the "free for all" because the incumbent taxi monopoly captured the regulatory bodies. That's all. Rather than ideologically defending all regulation, why not focus on having good regulation?
I'm certainly not defending all regulation, but unregulated taxis caused all sorts of problems in the past, which is why we regulated them. Background checks, improved guarantees of vehicle safety, minimum competency in English, etc. Why not have both? Break the monopoly, but create realistic and working regulations for all players.
This change is glossed over in this discussion a lot, but it is the single most important distinction between the old and new systems, and it definitely should reduce the barrier to entry when it comes to regulatory reasons.
I'm absolutely in favour of maintaining extremely strict controls over vehicles that can pick people up off the street with no prior arrangement. Loosening that is a bad idea, and it's not really at issue in the current debate.
And no, it does not appear as that at all. The prior arrangement may only be minutes before, but it includes knowing the name, license plate, and location of the person who's picking you up, all of which can be verified before getting in the car. This is categorically different from a taxi hail. It baffles me that someone could assert they're the same.
http://taxi.nv.gov/Complaints/Complaints/ (Yep, they require the form to be notarized. So consumer friendly.)
If I'm a tall black man, what do you think my odds are of successfully hailing a cab? (Hint: my black male friends in the US often ask me to hail them a cab.)
With Uber, I have full confidence that my complaints will be resolved to my full satisfaction. What regulatory regime do you propose to give me Uber levels of consumer protection if I take a yellow cab?
The fact is that technology + capitalism has solved the market failures that your proposed regulations theoretically address. Uber already does background checks. Uber inspects your car to make sure it's safe and comfortable. Perhaps taxi regulations were once necessary.
But with 2016 technology levels and current market environs, what is the specific problem that you think these regulations will solve, in either NYC or Mumbai?
Drivers are rated by passengers, passengers are rated by drivers. More data is collected and correlated, leading to stronger statistical correlations about bad actors on both sides of the system.
You don't want to pay for safe airlines? Non-rancid meat? Agriculture runoff regulation? Too bad.
It's a much less controversial argument that some regulation is for the common good. Sure.
Isn't it obvious that some level of regulation is too costly for consumers to justify the benefits they receive? To me, that's the charitable reading of bsbechtel's comment.
I don't dispute this. If you want the regulation changed, vote on it. If you simply ignore it because you think it doesn't apply to you, I hope to see you go out of business.
> As a consumer, in $my_economic_model, you don't get to opt out of regulation "because you want to".