You're wrong on all points.
+ That there are market controls ensures the viability of the system, that alone doesn't speak to necessarily how it was distributed. But you've contradicted yourself - and I don't think you grasp my argument: Uber vs. drivers is an infinitely large imbalance than cab-owners vs. drivers.
Putting the 'profits' in local cab owners - all things equal - is still better than putting all the profits in Uber.
+ "Where do you think the money comes from? Not being responsible just means they don't get to make choices - they're forced to accept whatever the car owner says."
Again you contradict yourself: Uber drives are more forcibly required to 'accept what uber says' - then any cab driver is forced to accept what an owner says. But again you missed point point: Cab companies and drives are businesses, and they can make longer term decisions about insurance and capital allocation. Cab owners will not run their business at a loss. Many Uber drivers, probably are running their business at a loss.
"Then why was medallion ownership the single best investment in the last 30 years? Compete for talent? Where?"
+ One, I don't believe you, and two, they compete for talent (i.e. drivers) like any other entity. Drivers can work for another owner, another cab company. There is a massive diversity of Cab owners in any region. This diversity creates competition. Uber is a de-facto monopoly in the service that they provide, given them even more power.
"Uber has crated jobs" - Uber has created a means for people to get around regulatory issues - earn mostly less than minimum wage, by making short term decisions about their work vs. long term investment in capex (i.e. cars) - and reaps 100% of the profits from a system.
Now - if we want to have a discussion about whether or not cab companies regulatory framework are appropriate, that's fine. But make no mistake - almost all of the benefit from Uber goes to Uber, and Uber riders, not the drivers.