4 ms·

It doesn't matter. That's something that should be brought up and discussed in parliament and then either changed or accepted as it is. The people enforcing the

It doesn't matter. That's something that should be brought up and discussed in parliament and then either changed or accepted as it is. The people enforcing the laws have to follow the legislation as it stands.

HappyTypist 10y ago
There is a thing called discretion. Perhaps France should jail a few million women for wearing pants? Just because something is "law" doesn't mean you have an obligation to follow it. Uber offers services far superior to uncompetitive, entitled taxi drivers that should've been put out of business years ago. I hope Uber will continue operations in Italy.
- Marazan 10y ago
  Uncompetitive? Uber has spent billions subsidising taxi rides. That is the very definition of uncompetitive! If they charged the amount to of money needed to actually turn a profit/breakeven then suddenly all those regular taxi companies would be competitive at worst and cheaper in many situations.
  - patrickaljord 10y ago
    How is it uncompetitive to sell at a loss to provide cheaper services to customers? How is that a bad thing for customers? It looks like it's only a bad thing for taxi companies (a tiny percentage of the population) while it's a good thing for the majority of Italians, this law protects and favors corporations instead of the people, this is the textbook definition of Fascism. Edit: About price dumping, this is a myth. When has this ever happened and tell me how could Uber remain a monopoly if its prices are too high? Competitors will show up because there will be good money to be made. The only monopolies that can last despite being overpriced are the ones protected by state violence and state laws that make competition illegal, a good example here would be, I don't know, Italian taxi companies? Also see on how accusations of 'price dumping' are always used as a disguised for protectionism https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html
    - fyolnish 10y ago
      It's bad because as soon as the competition dies out they can jack up the prices..
      - patrickaljord 10y ago
        If they jack up prices, many competitors will spring up because there will be good money to be made. How is that a problem exactly? Also, price dumping is a myth always use for protectionism ends, see https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html
        ux-app 10y ago
        I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Uber is a special case. I very much doubt that if Uber begins to jack up prices another multi-billion $ funded startup will come along and re apply the Uber playbook against Uber. And even if it did, the turmoil this would cause would be against the best interests of the general public.
        patrickaljord 10y ago
        Are you kidding me? Multi-billion dollars companies losing customers because their prices are too high and resulting in more competition happens _all_ the time. Just one example, linux (redhat) on the server vs Microsoft Windows Server. Low cost airlines vs regular airlines etc. When a company starts pricing their products too high, competitors will appear (unless you make specific laws like this one in Italy making competition illegal) simply because they are attracted by the money that can still be made with lower prices. That's market economy 101. Why are so many hackers so bad at basic economics?
        ux-app 10y ago
        > That's market economy 101. Why are so many hackers so bad at basic economics? I'm a high school IT teacher, so I don't pretend to know much about economics :) You may be right that the market will work itself out. I don't think free markets are a solution to every problem though. Some industries are highly regulated with state sanctioned monopolies because the free market can't be relied upon to provide a reasonable solution. Look to US healthcare as an example of free market economics gone awry. The SV mantra of "move fast and break things" works well if you're building some new dating app, not so much if you're potentially disrupting something that's actually important. If Uber strong arms its way into a market and then subsequently shits the bed, then what? How do local economies deal with the resulting vacuum? Maybe the vacuum get's filled, and if it doesn't? Then what? There are other industries where such disruption is not tolerated. Can you imagine if power, sanitation or road maintenance was completely deregulated and some foreign entrant was allowed to come in like a wrecking ball to experiment with "innovative" new models? The potential downsides far outweigh the possible upsides. Maybe taxis don't fit into the critical infrastructure jigsaw puzzle. I'm not qualified to comment on that, but I can see how Uber's tactics can have a net negative impact on the communities it enters. We'll see how it all plays out in good time. There are enough markets that are allowing Uber to operate that eventually it will shake out one way or another.
- tluyben2 10y ago
  > far superior Exactly! Instead of strikes and whining, the taxi drivers should have a hard look at themselves why people like Uber better besides money. Because those entitled drivers are not providing quality of service compared to Uber and they should be out of business. I hope Uber continues as even legally (aka more expensive) they would beat regular cabs easily.
  - mk89 10y ago
    What kind of "superior" quality? It's easy when you don't need to buy a license whose cost can go up to 200'000 euros and you need 15-20 years to pay it off, and when you have no rules to follow.
    - tluyben2 10y ago
      Well if you remove the newer cars and better rates, both which I do not care much about and also can understand it might be(not sure) unfair, you still have cleaner cars, friendly, english speaking, non rude and non scamming drivers. Taxi drivers in all countries, even with me having Google maps, will try to take longer routes. They are often rude because complacent: why not, you cannot pick your driver anyway right? Spanish, Italian, HK, Shanghai taxi drivers generally speak no English: their Uber counterparts do. Might not be good but they try because ratings. I travel a lot and everywhere and take taxis anywhere (do not like subways) and regular taxi standards universally awful; we miss Uber instantly. My friend from Portugal always jokes about how rude the drivers are in his country when we get in/out a cab with him; he imitates them etc but then says 'what can you do?'.
      - foldr 10y ago
        I'm sorry, but you're coming across as a parody of an awful America tourist. I don't think the majority of Italians are going to be all beat up about the fact that taxi drivers in their country speak (gasp!) Italian and not English. Although, stalking you via your HN profile, I note that you may not in fact be American. That just means you have no excuse!
Dylan16807 10y ago
Are you saying that the people should never discuss laws, only parliament should? Let me try stating my point again: in "they broke the law, period" I am fine with "they broke the law", but I object to ", period". ", period" is an explicit discussion-ender. We should not be ending the discussion immediately without considering the pros and cons of that law.

HappyTypist 10y ago

There is a thing called discretion. Perhaps France should jail a few million women for wearing pants? Just because something is "law" doesn't mean you have an obligation to follow it. Uber offers services far superior to uncompetitive, entitled taxi drivers that should've been put out of business years ago. I hope Uber will continue operations in Italy.

Marazan 10y ago
Uncompetitive? Uber has spent billions subsidising taxi rides. That is the very definition of uncompetitive! If they charged the amount to of money needed to actually turn a profit/breakeven then suddenly all those regular taxi companies would be competitive at worst and cheaper in many situations.
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  How is it uncompetitive to sell at a loss to provide cheaper services to customers? How is that a bad thing for customers? It looks like it's only a bad thing for taxi companies (a tiny percentage of the population) while it's a good thing for the majority of Italians, this law protects and favors corporations instead of the people, this is the textbook definition of Fascism. Edit: About price dumping, this is a myth. When has this ever happened and tell me how could Uber remain a monopoly if its prices are too high? Competitors will show up because there will be good money to be made. The only monopolies that can last despite being overpriced are the ones protected by state violence and state laws that make competition illegal, a good example here would be, I don't know, Italian taxi companies? Also see on how accusations of 'price dumping' are always used as a disguised for protectionism https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html
  - fyolnish 10y ago
    It's bad because as soon as the competition dies out they can jack up the prices..
    - patrickaljord 10y ago
      If they jack up prices, many competitors will spring up because there will be good money to be made. How is that a problem exactly? Also, price dumping is a myth always use for protectionism ends, see https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html
      - ux-app 10y ago
        I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Uber is a special case. I very much doubt that if Uber begins to jack up prices another multi-billion $ funded startup will come along and re apply the Uber playbook against Uber. And even if it did, the turmoil this would cause would be against the best interests of the general public.
        patrickaljord 10y ago
        Are you kidding me? Multi-billion dollars companies losing customers because their prices are too high and resulting in more competition happens _all_ the time. Just one example, linux (redhat) on the server vs Microsoft Windows Server. Low cost airlines vs regular airlines etc. When a company starts pricing their products too high, competitors will appear (unless you make specific laws like this one in Italy making competition illegal) simply because they are attracted by the money that can still be made with lower prices. That's market economy 101. Why are so many hackers so bad at basic economics?
        ux-app 10y ago
        > That's market economy 101. Why are so many hackers so bad at basic economics? I'm a high school IT teacher, so I don't pretend to know much about economics :) You may be right that the market will work itself out. I don't think free markets are a solution to every problem though. Some industries are highly regulated with state sanctioned monopolies because the free market can't be relied upon to provide a reasonable solution. Look to US healthcare as an example of free market economics gone awry. The SV mantra of "move fast and break things" works well if you're building some new dating app, not so much if you're potentially disrupting something that's actually important. If Uber strong arms its way into a market and then subsequently shits the bed, then what? How do local economies deal with the resulting vacuum? Maybe the vacuum get's filled, and if it doesn't? Then what? There are other industries where such disruption is not tolerated. Can you imagine if power, sanitation or road maintenance was completely deregulated and some foreign entrant was allowed to come in like a wrecking ball to experiment with "innovative" new models? The potential downsides far outweigh the possible upsides. Maybe taxis don't fit into the critical infrastructure jigsaw puzzle. I'm not qualified to comment on that, but I can see how Uber's tactics can have a net negative impact on the communities it enters. We'll see how it all plays out in good time. There are enough markets that are allowing Uber to operate that eventually it will shake out one way or another.
tluyben2 10y ago
> far superior Exactly! Instead of strikes and whining, the taxi drivers should have a hard look at themselves why people like Uber better besides money. Because those entitled drivers are not providing quality of service compared to Uber and they should be out of business. I hope Uber continues as even legally (aka more expensive) they would beat regular cabs easily.
- mk89 10y ago
  What kind of "superior" quality? It's easy when you don't need to buy a license whose cost can go up to 200'000 euros and you need 15-20 years to pay it off, and when you have no rules to follow.
  - tluyben2 10y ago
    Well if you remove the newer cars and better rates, both which I do not care much about and also can understand it might be(not sure) unfair, you still have cleaner cars, friendly, english speaking, non rude and non scamming drivers. Taxi drivers in all countries, even with me having Google maps, will try to take longer routes. They are often rude because complacent: why not, you cannot pick your driver anyway right? Spanish, Italian, HK, Shanghai taxi drivers generally speak no English: their Uber counterparts do. Might not be good but they try because ratings. I travel a lot and everywhere and take taxis anywhere (do not like subways) and regular taxi standards universally awful; we miss Uber instantly. My friend from Portugal always jokes about how rude the drivers are in his country when we get in/out a cab with him; he imitates them etc but then says 'what can you do?'.
    - foldr 10y ago
      I'm sorry, but you're coming across as a parody of an awful America tourist. I don't think the majority of Italians are going to be all beat up about the fact that taxi drivers in their country speak (gasp!) Italian and not English. Although, stalking you via your HN profile, I note that you may not in fact be American. That just means you have no excuse!

Dylan16807 10y ago

Are you saying that the people should never discuss laws, only parliament should? Let me try stating my point again: in "they broke the law, period" I am fine with "they broke the law", but I object to ", period". ", period" is an explicit discussion-ender. We should not be ending the discussion immediately without considering the pros and cons of that law.