2 ms·
Sure, Uber demonstrates that regulation is generally harmful and typically rips off consumers, but doesn't that still allow a few worthy regulations. Say, driv
by MarkMc 10y ago
Sure, Uber demonstrates that regulation is generally harmful and typically rips off consumers, but doesn't that still allow a few worthy regulations. Say, drivers cannot have a recent conviction for a violent offence?
- yummyfajitas 10y agoUber and Lyft already require this in the US, according to a quick google search. http://www.idrivewithuber.com/uber-driver-requirements/ http://www.idrivewithuber.com/uber-driver-requirements/ https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/213585758-Requirements-to-Become-a-Lyft-Driver#bgc https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/213585758-Requiremen... In India, Uber now imposes a background check that drastically exceeds the regulatory minimum (police-issued "character certificate", approx an 8k bribe). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-09/uber-drivers-say-130-can-buy-a-clean-record-as-rape-riles-india http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-12-09/uber-drive... Sounds like criminals driving cars isn't currently a problem in the US. In India, it's a problem that regulators don't solve but Uber does. So again, what problems that currently exist would regulation solve?
- yjnut 10y agoIt is outrageously silly to compare Uber's self-regulation in an environment where it is surrounded by the constant threat of more intrusive government regulation; to it's hypothetical behavior in a hypothetical world where government regulation was not on the table. One of the MAJOR positive spillover effects from government regulation is that companies self-police themselves more effectively, as part of their attempt to make sure they remain officially unregulated.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoYou could be right. Maybe the optimal policy would be for politicians to rattle their sabre in Uber's general direction while doing nothing.