5 ms·

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

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.
  - mk89 10y ago
    Who is paying taxes here? Isn't this a loss for citizens? Taxi-drivers willing or not have to pay taxes. They definitely do also "black" money, but at the end of the month they'll have to declare X euros in / Y euros out. Do you have to do the same if you are a driver for Uber?
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Taxi drivers are paid in cash. Uber drivers are paid exclusively using electronic systems. Guess which one is easier to avoid declaring?
  - notahacker 10y ago
    It's uncompetitive because the only purpose of doing so is to ensure other less VC-backed companies are driven out of business, creating a monopoly. Which needless to say, isn't good as in the long term for its customer base as nice VC-subsidised rides are in the short term. It's not a charitable endeavour, and they're not subsidising rides out of an intention to extract less profit from the public in the long term. Calling the banning of a company which has pointedly ignored every law that gets in its way "fascism" is just childish, and when it's referring to a country that actually suffered the results of having a Fascist government, it's offensive childishness.
    - patrickaljord 10y ago
      But creating laws that favour a few corporations against the benefit of the people is textbook definition of fascism, that's literally fascism. Sorry if quoting definitions is offensive. Also I'm from France and we've suffered from both Nazism and Fascism. 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?
      - rorykoehler 10y ago
        Which corporations are being protected in Italy? As outlined multiple times in this thread all the taxi licenses are owned by individuals. Uber will fail precisely for the reason you pointed out, they will never be able to keep a monopoly. In the mean time though it is not in the interests of society to favour short term gains for the individual in the form of cheap loss leading fares (price dumping... not a myth and widely documented.. how else could Uber be haemorrhaging $1B plus a quarter?) at the expense of mass unemployment and the associated reduced tax receipts that benefit society as a whole. Arguing otherwise is extremely short sighted.
        patrickaljord 10y ago
  - _joe 10y ago
    Selling at a loss when you have a lot of money will give you an unfair advantage over others that can't sell at a loss. You do that so that you can take a stranglehold on the market and then dictate prices yourselves. It's the texbook definition of dumping: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) and protecting against that practice is NOT the texbook definition of fascism at all, quite the opposite; also keep in mind there are no taxi corporations here, as the taxi license must be owned by the individual driving it (with some small and irrelevant exception). That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with Uber selling its services as long as they abide by the law, they and their drivers pay the taxes and they don't engage in anti-competitive practices.
  - Marazan 10y ago
    They charge less than their product costs. They have no other product to subsides this. There is no plan that will lead them to profitability. They are a zombie firm, existent purely due to the infusions of external, non-business activity derived cash.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      So Italy is saving Uber from itself? Stop the capitalism welfare! Let Uber burn itself to the ground!
      - Marazan 10y ago
        Alas, due to the chronic miss allocation of capital Uber's bonfire of VC money will take down lots of productive businesses and sole traders (existing minicab operators and taxi firms) before it goes.
      - ux-app 10y ago
        > Let Uber burn itself to the ground! They may cause great havoc on their way down. Some jurisdictions are anticipating this and banning Uber preemptively. This is rational. Let Uber prove that it's viable on someone else's turf. If it does so, then great, the laws can be changed and Uber can be admitted into the market later. If it turns out to be a total disaster then these jurisdictions have saved themselves a lot of trouble.
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!

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.
- mk89 10y ago
  Who is paying taxes here? Isn't this a loss for citizens? Taxi-drivers willing or not have to pay taxes. They definitely do also "black" money, but at the end of the month they'll have to declare X euros in / Y euros out. Do you have to do the same if you are a driver for Uber?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Taxi drivers are paid in cash. Uber drivers are paid exclusively using electronic systems. Guess which one is easier to avoid declaring?
- notahacker 10y ago
  It's uncompetitive because the only purpose of doing so is to ensure other less VC-backed companies are driven out of business, creating a monopoly. Which needless to say, isn't good as in the long term for its customer base as nice VC-subsidised rides are in the short term. It's not a charitable endeavour, and they're not subsidising rides out of an intention to extract less profit from the public in the long term. Calling the banning of a company which has pointedly ignored every law that gets in its way "fascism" is just childish, and when it's referring to a country that actually suffered the results of having a Fascist government, it's offensive childishness.
  - patrickaljord 10y ago
    But creating laws that favour a few corporations against the benefit of the people is textbook definition of fascism, that's literally fascism. Sorry if quoting definitions is offensive. Also I'm from France and we've suffered from both Nazism and Fascism. 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?
    - rorykoehler 10y ago
      Which corporations are being protected in Italy? As outlined multiple times in this thread all the taxi licenses are owned by individuals. Uber will fail precisely for the reason you pointed out, they will never be able to keep a monopoly. In the mean time though it is not in the interests of society to favour short term gains for the individual in the form of cheap loss leading fares (price dumping... not a myth and widely documented.. how else could Uber be haemorrhaging $1B plus a quarter?) at the expense of mass unemployment and the associated reduced tax receipts that benefit society as a whole. Arguing otherwise is extremely short sighted.
      - patrickaljord 10y ago
- _joe 10y ago
  Selling at a loss when you have a lot of money will give you an unfair advantage over others that can't sell at a loss. You do that so that you can take a stranglehold on the market and then dictate prices yourselves. It's the texbook definition of dumping: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) and protecting against that practice is NOT the texbook definition of fascism at all, quite the opposite; also keep in mind there are no taxi corporations here, as the taxi license must be owned by the individual driving it (with some small and irrelevant exception). That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with Uber selling its services as long as they abide by the law, they and their drivers pay the taxes and they don't engage in anti-competitive practices.
- Marazan 10y ago
  They charge less than their product costs. They have no other product to subsides this. There is no plan that will lead them to profitability. They are a zombie firm, existent purely due to the infusions of external, non-business activity derived cash.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    So Italy is saving Uber from itself? Stop the capitalism welfare! Let Uber burn itself to the ground!
    - Marazan 10y ago
      Alas, due to the chronic miss allocation of capital Uber's bonfire of VC money will take down lots of productive businesses and sole traders (existing minicab operators and taxi firms) before it goes.
    - ux-app 10y ago
      > Let Uber burn itself to the ground! They may cause great havoc on their way down. Some jurisdictions are anticipating this and banning Uber preemptively. This is rational. Let Uber prove that it's viable on someone else's turf. If it does so, then great, the laws can be changed and Uber can be admitted into the market later. If it turns out to be a total disaster then these jurisdictions have saved themselves a lot of trouble.

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!