I'm no economics expert, but if Uber loses money on subsidiaries, that's dumping(1) against local Taxi companies and these companies actually might have some valid points, no?
In my mind, the situation is a little more suspect if they are subsidizing standard rides in the market. However, at this point, there are two major competitors in almost every US market, Lyft and Uber, so they are making the market between them. Whether or not either of them is losing money, if they raised their prices at this point, they would suffer a precipitous drop in market share. Sooner or later, they'll find an equilibrium. Taxi companies can choose to ante up and participate in the market, or fold and get out -- that's how it goes. From a competitive standpoint, it takes two to tango, it doesn't take three.
Anti monopoly laws are meant to protect consumers, NOT other businesses.
It is very hard for a company to get in legal trouble for price dumping, because as it turns out, price dumping in many cases is freaking awesome for consumers.
No, if they are actually colluding, that is an illegal combination in restraint of trade independent of whether that collusion involves dumping, and anti-trust law provides both private causes of action (for harmed competitors) and public causes of action (for the government) to address such collusion.
For me, this is what's so scary about Uber. It's not "disruption" as many people seem to claim. It's engineered regulatory capture.
The goal isn't to disrupt a market, but rather to wipe it out and have the financial and political backing to secure some sort of regulatory environment in which lower-priced options cannot emerge after the VC-subsidy phase ends and the monopolistic price increases begin.
It's double sad that as the sort of flagship start-up of the era, Uber leads the way in deplorable executive behavior, shady business practices, and questionable labor policies ... and despite it, they've managed to win the PR war that has every naive tech youngster singing about how they are "disruptive" and singing how all criticisms against them are invalid because of precious, precious "disruption."
Rockefeller Oil, J.P. Morgan Steel / US Steel, Tobacco Trust, etc. etc. These companies monopolized the industry in the late 1800s and fixed-prices to kill competitors.
One example was (and maybe still is), to ban discounts on textbooks, as the big margins were a big reason small bookstores stayed afloat.
Another was is to limit hours of operations in stores, including making stores be closed on sunday being mandatory, as many family retailers just couldn't man the store without hiring someone, and labor laws made hiring someone for little time expensive.
There was also a semi-recent outcry when the government stopped regulating rent hikes. for commercial property. There were plenty of stores in highly desirable locations that were on the same lease for a century! Their monthly rent could be two orders of magnitude away from the space next door.
Such level of protectionism of old business models just means that instead of going through pain and optimization for decades, they all get wiped off the map in one fell swoop the minute competition that can skirt the protectionist regulations comes in: Imagine what happens to tiny stores when, instead of first having to compete with US levels of efficiency in big box stores, they get to compete with Amazon. What happens to record stores that can get away with selling music for 25+ euros an album when spotify shows up?
So, while there is reason in fearing monopolies, the levels of regulation I describe just have little to do with what the US calls anti monopoly regulation.
Nothing special about ISPs.
See Phone Service and Electricity.
The issue with natural-monopolies is that when one company starts serving a neighborhood, it makes no sense for a 2nd company to start serving the same neighborhood. That's just wasteful.
So there are huge amounts of Verizon-only neighborhoods or Comcast-only neighborhoods out there.
--------
Other countries solve this by highly regulating the "natural monopoly" part. IE: If you are going to lay wires to a neighborhood, you become subject to strict regulations. (Ex: utility).
Then, they force you to provide multiple choices. The deregulation of power companies for example allows me to pick a blend-of-energy, or I can pay a little bit more for clean energy providers.
Similarly, if we turn Comcast into a government-regulated utility (aka: accept the fact that it will always monopolize a neighborhood), and then force it to supply multiple ISPs in its pipes, things would probably get better.
My county actually has this deregulation, but it doesn't seem to work in practice because Comcast is both cheaper and got better customer service than the other ISPs that run on Comcast's networks.
Arguably, it forces Comcast to have better customer service. Because they're actually competing in my area. I actually go with Verizon in my neighborhood though.
Unlike what the other commenter said... there are plenty of historical examples.
> The most notorious of the trusts were the Sugar Trust, the Whisky Trust, the Cordage Trust, the Beef Trust, the Tobacco Trust, John D. Rockefeller's Oil Trust (Standard Oil of New Jersey), and J. P. Morgan's Steel Trust (U.S. Steel Corporation).
Some dominant companies of course emerged in that era, but I'd be interested to see evidence that companies that weren't insulated from competition by government policies actually used their dominance to harm consumers.
Also, the fact that some companies became very dominant doesn't mean ipso facto that they harmed consumers. If a company becomes huge fair and square (as opposed to via regulatory capture or other coercive means), it may just mean that people like their product the best.
Those didn't exist in the 1800s. The rise of the corporation occurred after the 1830s, when Congress no longer had to approve of every single company's existence.
After that, it was Laissez-faire economics for over 50 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire ... basically ending with the Sherman Anti-Trust Act when Americans realized that was a bad idea.
http://ncpedia.org/united-states-v-american-tobacco-co
> protected by tariffs
Globalization wasn't a big thing in the 1800s. US Companies basically only had to worry about other US Companies. There was some foreign trade, but not much.
Within the US, a major entity like the Tobacco Trust had the power to set prices. When you're the only company in the entire US, you have the ability to stomp out competition like that.
Then a little thing called the "GPS" was invented. Uber takes advantage of the GPS and anybody can now plot a course to anywhere without specialist knowledge of a city.
The strange thing is, people seem to have forgotten what life was like before GPS.
In Vienna (Austria), taxi drivers had to pass a pretty tough exam which required intimate knowledge of the cities streets.
A good driver still makes a difference in the age of GPS, because you can often safe quite some time by avoiding certain points of congestion and factoring in traffic.
But with GPS that incorporates (live) traffic data, the additional value is a lot smaller.
The day that ends, it will be back to business.
Think of Uber as a taxi company subsidizing your travel for a few years. Things will be back to normal once the VC realizes they can't make profits until they charge customers like other taxi companies.
By the way, according to the article, Uber is roughly breaking even in the US (lost some money last quarter, made money the quarter before).
I could see something like this being an interesting This American Life story.
Hotels, Transportation etc.
Why do you think it costs Uber $1.2 billion in losses just to survive?
This is false. The 'exceptions' are the norm.
It's all but tautological that monopolies can only be established in markets in which there are meaningful barriers to entry.
Those barriers are seldom legal, and legal barriers are of arguably limited value.
The only way for a 'start up' to 'disrupt' is if they are extremely well funded relative to the monopoly holder's investment in the market.
As noted elsewhere today, that is precisely the business model of Uber/Lyft/AirBnB: use vast amounts of capital to attempt to break into locked markets, while unprofitable for years and years.
Absent funding at that level, monopolies that level are largely unassailable once established.
The pace of breaking them and evolving the market in the interest of consumers is thus measured on a very very long timescale, during which consumers take it in the shorts.
(Witness taxi service in SF pre-Uber/Lyft)
I'm not sure how relevant it is to ride-sharing, because the industry is not particularly vital to the economy, and the barrier to entry is low.
Where it becomes a concern is in crucial industrial infrastructure. Over the long term, China, for example, can dump cheap, government subsidized steel in the US, obliterating the domestic steel industry. 40 years down the road there's nowhere else to buy steel, which is bad both economically and militarily.
>the U.S. Supreme Court has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on a predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole
Heck, if you buy Uber's logic, they don't actually compete with Taxi companies. Lyft is their only serious competitor, and both of them are losing a ton of money (arguably, but I'd like to see a court weigh in) because of Uber's irresponsible behavior.
Even if they figure out some onerous legal contract that forces drivers to work exclusively for Uber, other drivers will sign up for a company that charges consumers less and pays drivers more.
They get praise for their logistics expertise, but advanced routefinding using digital maps is literally a commodity (you can pay ~$0 for a route from lots of companies).
Destroy all competitors by dumping. This is financed through investment and disregarding all regulation (who needs background checks for taxi drivers anyway?)
Uber also fought against thorough background check legislation in texas if I remember correctly.
There are tons of other regulatory issues like insurance.
I'd be opposed to adding additional regulation if not needed.
AirBnB put about $10M in SF fighting regulation in the last election. Smart money.
Their problem today is that despite their success in that round, the fiction that their business is about a 'share economy' is unraveling as details emerge from third parties on their actual revenue stream:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/airbnb-probably-isnt-dr...
I look forward to regulation catching them.
Legality hasn't exactly been a problem to Uber's expansion. Why would this particular situation be different?
In quite a few countries, taxi rules are governed by cities - so the municipality government is the enemy.
Anti-monopoly/ predatory pricing rules are at least national level - and if you are unlucky you can go against the EU itself, which historically has not been afraid to slap companies with gargantuan fines that would never be allowed from the pro-business USA SC.
This is well above any fine from the EU.
Uber might feel that the risk-reward ratio is not good enough here to be acting in bad faith.
I doubt Uber is trying to run those cars with only one passenger at a time.
The whole car sharing is marketing bull, so that they can justify dodging regulation and dumping prices.
A driver does not make money if his Taxi is not running or it's running idle.
What Uber are currently doing is at least trying to minimize idle times.
Also, Uber win ultimately if all Taxi drivers in all the countries only affiliate with Uber (if Uber are so good at reducing their idle time)
But then, there is the aspect of self driving taxis. In that case Uber will win if Uber are the only operator and no competition is EVER allowed... which seems to be very difficult in the longer run. Mass-transit solutions will be more efficient than transporting only a single individual or maybe 3 or 4 at the same time ? So Uber may be the cost-effective somewhat luxury transit providers ?