Municipalities and states hold "monopolies" on licenses of all sorts; the argument that says medallions are bad public policy because they're monopolistic applies equally to many other forms of licensure, for instance zoning.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/the-amaz...
Its 100% responsible, from one perspective, because "bankruptcy" is one form of government "meddling" in economic markets.
I agree that NYC has not increased the number of medallions in a manner commensurate with its growth since 1970. But this is like referring to the sale prices of commercial condos - you don't need to own a storefront in order to have a retail store (most business owners don't). Likewise, you don't need to own a medallion, just have access to one (ie, rent it, which is what most taxi drivers in NYC do).
If Uber could help usher in the end of some of the other government monopolies, we'd be looking at some huge steps forward.
Zoning is not needed for the former.
For example there is a fixed limit on available land, therefore it makes sense to regulate its use for the common good. The problem with licensing taxis isn't that they are licensed, it's that the number of licenses is fixed arbitrarily without regard to the actual need for taxis.
True; many of those other forms of licensure are also bad.
First, land use has different externalities, but for-hire cars still have obvious externalities. And because of the civic role that taxis have assumed over the last 50 years, decisions about the management of the taxi market have still more externalities.
Second, my point wasn't that land use and taxis have the same issues, but rather that the logic that taxi medallions were bad public policy because "monopoly" was flimsy. Which, it is.
Like what? Note that, for example, "They take up space on the road and pollute the air" doesn't count because not-for-hire cars do the exact same thing. It has to be an externality that is caused by the fact that the ride is for-hire. There may be such externalities, but I think they are far from obvious.
> the logic that taxi medallions were bad public policy because "monopoly" was flimsy
It's not the medallions per se that are the bad public policy, it's artificially limiting the supply (and then compounding the problem by making them transferrable). That's what the OP (almost surely) meant by "monopoly". Zoning also artificially constrains the supply of land available for certain uses, but that is clearly justifiable because of the (actually obvious) externalities of land use. The externalities of paying someone for a ride are far less clear.
More specifically, the externality argument about taxis is that they take up space while hunting for fares, while private cars only drive when actually being used to get somewhere.
I agree though, that the point is irrelevant to Uber, since it's strictly a by-request car service that is not hailed from the street, and so doesn't cause the congestion that typical fare hunters would.