3 ms·

It's hard to feel bad for people who chose to invest in rigged markets. Their frustration should remain squarly with local representation. Show me the public vo

by mkhpalm 11y ago

It's hard to feel bad for people who chose to invest in rigged markets. Their frustration should remain squarly with local representation. Show me the public vote that decided to implement medallions. It's like voting to regulate the number of restaurants in a given city and leaving half that market to mcdonalds. (For safety of course) People would laugh at not leaving that up to supply and demand. The only reason it worked with cabs is because nobody used to care how it worked keeping it open to political grease balling. Suddenly people care and now everybody is scrambling trying to explain their positions on it. And make no doubt about it... Every representative from when it was implemented to today is responsible for allowing it to continue under their watch. Once they know you all are going to hold our representitives personally responsible it will go back to supply and demand faster than anybody can thrown money at it.

x5n1 11y ago
Most, if not all, of the people holding the medallions had nothing to do with their institution or even maintenance as a monopoly. They are simply entrepreneurs playing an existing game. A game whose rules have drastically changed.
- smsm42 11y ago
  That's the risk in the entrepreneurship. And that's exactly why people push for less restrictive regulations - to reduce this risk coming from regulatory change. Of course you never can take the risk of change out of entrepreneurship, but at least you can reduce the risk from regulatory challenges and changes. What seems to be happening instead is simultaneously arguing for more regulation and to insulate people from the effects of change in the regulation - which will only breed more regulation, more people hurt by it and demand for even more regulation to compensate for it. The only way out of this vicious circle of regulation to fix regulation is to minimize the regulation to the minimum necessary to ensure basic equal access to the market, basic contract enforcement, etc. and then let the market participants figure it out. That way at least the regulatory component of the risks is greatly reduced. If you are not forced to pay $250k for the privilege to do business, there's no way this investment would go bust.

by mkhpalm 11y ago

x5n1 11y ago

Most, if not all, of the people holding the medallions had nothing to do with their institution or even maintenance as a monopoly. They are simply entrepreneurs playing an existing game. A game whose rules have drastically changed.

smsm42 11y ago
That's the risk in the entrepreneurship. And that's exactly why people push for less restrictive regulations - to reduce this risk coming from regulatory change. Of course you never can take the risk of change out of entrepreneurship, but at least you can reduce the risk from regulatory challenges and changes. What seems to be happening instead is simultaneously arguing for more regulation and to insulate people from the effects of change in the regulation - which will only breed more regulation, more people hurt by it and demand for even more regulation to compensate for it. The only way out of this vicious circle of regulation to fix regulation is to minimize the regulation to the minimum necessary to ensure basic equal access to the market, basic contract enforcement, etc. and then let the market participants figure it out. That way at least the regulatory component of the risks is greatly reduced. If you are not forced to pay $250k for the privilege to do business, there's no way this investment would go bust.