Hacker News Reader

Comment by turc1656 | Hacker News Reader

"He blamed politicians — mayors Michael R. Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo — and their acquiescence to the rich for permitting so many cars to flood the streets."

Sounds like this guy didn't really believe in a free market and wanted the politicians to make sure supply was tightly controlled so that he could profit from reduced competition. I'm sorry but I can provide no sympathy for someone with this mentality because I'm quite sure he saw no issue with restricted competition and a very, very significant barrier to entry when he was able to profit from it (those medallions cost more than most people's houses in NYC).

View on HN

To be fair, there is no such thing as the free market. Markets only exist thanks to States. They have never existed independently of a state (I recommend the book Debt: The First 5,000 Years).

Now back to the free market, Uber is operating at a loss. They're undercutting Taxis and taking huge hits to keep their business running. That kind of pricing is illegal, and we've seen companies like airlines get into huge trouble for operating at a loss to try to kill smaller airlines. It's literally anti-competitive.

If the playing field were fair, it'd be different. But it's not. Uber constantly ignores laws on an international scale, under the name of "disruption." They might be laws you don't like, but they do exist for a reason, and somewhere you have to draw a line.

Agree 100% on Uber's anti-competitive practices and pricing structure. Amazon does the same thing - it's retail business which is what Amazon is famous for produces a substantial loss every quarter (and it's increasing). They have been subsidizing their losses with the profits from the high margin cloud business. This is supposedly a very serious felony when you have pricing/market power (and obviously Amazon does have that), yet Jeff Bezos and his executive team remain handcuff-free.

I haven't read that book, but your statement about markets only existing with the state strikes me as very odd. Conceptually, no government is required for a simple barter system - you and I can simply agree to trade X for Y. Perhaps that is key point - if you want to use "money", then the state is required. Although even then you can theoretically just use gold/silver coins.

> no government is required for a simple barter system

Ah but we never started with barter. That's the myth the book goes into. The very earliest systems of money were all credit based. Money came about through war (you conquer an area, leave a garrison, force people who have never used coins to pay taxes, coins they only get from soldiers) and barter only appeared when a state failed.

Barter only exists in the void left by states. There is no evidence trading oxen for grain every existed. It's too small scale. Early pre-historical civilizations were more likely to be communistic where everyone helped everyone else (native american tibes were like this .. more like ant colonies).

Even when a barter market emerged, it semi-state like thing had to rise with it. It's a really good book; highly recommended.

the "free" modifier is sort of meaningless but markets exist anywhere that things are traded repeatedly. If markets require a state, then what are black markets?

I forget what it's called, but there's a type of market where people belonging to different, warring societies find ways to negotiate and trade by using something like dead drops necessarily without ever meeting face to face. Edit, found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_trade

As a consumer (driver), if rich VC's want to subsidize my rides (wages) they can be my guest.

Anti-competitive practices are bad in theory, but I think a lot of time the effects are overstated and businesses trot them out as a convenient excuse to get government to regulate their competition. The political and legislative process is pretty messed up. You can't just assume government will be able to wave a magic wand and fix it with no side effects. Keep in mind the original NYC medallion system was put in place via regulation, and it's the root of many of these problems.

There was a lot of similar anti-competitive talk around firms like Walmart and Barnes and Noble. Neither could have been THAT anti-competitive, seeing as how both are now having trouble competing with companies like Amazon. And meanwhile, consumers have enable to enjoy low prices and get more for their money.

I feel bad that the state promoted the medallion system and then allowed competing taxis in without compensation or relief to those who bought into it. I agree that the medallion system was bad, but the pain caused to those who bought in should be alleviated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com