4 ms·

Most likely there wasn't any "democratic" decision to establish a limitation on the number of taxi licenses. It's just bureaucracy. I don't really see the econo

by muninn_ 10y ago

Most likely there wasn't any "democratic" decision to establish a limitation on the number of taxi licenses. It's just bureaucracy. I don't really see the economic argument for them, Uber competition or not.

RobertoG 10y ago
"I don't really see the economic argument for them" It's a price control measure. They decided that the people doing this job should be able to make a living doing it. Of course, this goes against laissez faire ideology, but, it's their prerogative to choose that.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  This has nothing to do with laissez faire ideology and you are actually the one showing your ideological stance here. Uber disrupts because it turns something which used to be a relatively high paying job into one that isn't because it doesn't need to be. Uber subsdizing by taking on debt isn't unfair competition anymore than a supermarket who decided to sell something at a discount because it want to attract customers and I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again.
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    I was only answering the parent question: they limit the supply in order to control the price. That goes against laissez faire ideology for sure. In my opinion, the most important point is that the Italians have the right to do so if they choose. Or to change their minds in the future. " I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again." OK, good for them, in that case.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  Yes but what is the economic argument for doing so? Does this make Italians better off? How does it affect the cost of living? Why not double the limit? Why not half it? Should people even be employed to do this? What about when self-driving cars can operate as taxis? Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers? My point is to ask what research and thought has gone into this policy. Somebody mentioned that it was "a democratic decision" when I highly doubt anybody voted on this issue, let alone discussed it with the public. It seems at first glance to be mindless bureaucracy, but I can't say for certain.
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    "Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers?" I suppose that they do it for those too through collective agreements (it seems that there is not minimum wage in Italy). That would not make sense for taxi drivers that are basically small business, so they have to limit the supply. Are Italians better off? No idea. It depends on your ideology. We should define better off first, and we would never arrive to an agreement there. The thing is that this is the way they decide to organize using their institutions.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      No they don't. Eastern European drivers drive for the fraction of a cost than western european drivers do because they have less cost where they come from. So all this shows is exactly the political nature of the judges uber ruling. It's all politics and claiming it's somehow justified as you did originally is simply not the case.
      - RobertoG 10y ago
        The judges just followed the law. So, their ruling is totally justified. The law is, obviously, political in nature and decided through the Italian democratic institutions. Really, I don't know what more to say.
        ThomPete 10y ago
        No i am aware of that which is why you keep going back to it being a democratic institution. But thats not whats at question here. You tried to argue that the judges ruling was justified By isolating it to a legality thing, but then a lot of other companies should be shut down in itally. Foreign truckdriver companies from eastern europe, automated cars etc all on the basis that they are based on unfair competition. Its a politically motivated ruling too.
    - muninn_ 10y ago
      > The thing is that this is the way they decide to organize using their institutions. So what? This is a non-factor in any sort of discussion like this. > small business, so they have to limit the supply. Why?

by muninn_ 10y ago

RobertoG 10y ago

"I don't really see the economic argument for them" It's a price control measure. They decided that the people doing this job should be able to make a living doing it. Of course, this goes against laissez faire ideology, but, it's their prerogative to choose that.

ThomPete 10y ago
This has nothing to do with laissez faire ideology and you are actually the one showing your ideological stance here. Uber disrupts because it turns something which used to be a relatively high paying job into one that isn't because it doesn't need to be. Uber subsdizing by taking on debt isn't unfair competition anymore than a supermarket who decided to sell something at a discount because it want to attract customers and I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again.
- RobertoG 10y ago
  I was only answering the parent question: they limit the supply in order to control the price. That goes against laissez faire ideology for sure. In my opinion, the most important point is that the Italians have the right to do so if they choose. Or to change their minds in the future. " I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again." OK, good for them, in that case.
muninn_ 10y ago
Yes but what is the economic argument for doing so? Does this make Italians better off? How does it affect the cost of living? Why not double the limit? Why not half it? Should people even be employed to do this? What about when self-driving cars can operate as taxis? Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers? My point is to ask what research and thought has gone into this policy. Somebody mentioned that it was "a democratic decision" when I highly doubt anybody voted on this issue, let alone discussed it with the public. It seems at first glance to be mindless bureaucracy, but I can't say for certain.
- RobertoG 10y ago
  "Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers?" I suppose that they do it for those too through collective agreements (it seems that there is not minimum wage in Italy). That would not make sense for taxi drivers that are basically small business, so they have to limit the supply. Are Italians better off? No idea. It depends on your ideology. We should define better off first, and we would never arrive to an agreement there. The thing is that this is the way they decide to organize using their institutions.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    No they don't. Eastern European drivers drive for the fraction of a cost than western european drivers do because they have less cost where they come from. So all this shows is exactly the political nature of the judges uber ruling. It's all politics and claiming it's somehow justified as you did originally is simply not the case.
    - RobertoG 10y ago
      The judges just followed the law. So, their ruling is totally justified. The law is, obviously, political in nature and decided through the Italian democratic institutions. Really, I don't know what more to say.
      - ThomPete 10y ago
        No i am aware of that which is why you keep going back to it being a democratic institution. But thats not whats at question here. You tried to argue that the judges ruling was justified By isolating it to a legality thing, but then a lot of other companies should be shut down in itally. Foreign truckdriver companies from eastern europe, automated cars etc all on the basis that they are based on unfair competition. Its a politically motivated ruling too.
  - muninn_ 10y ago
    > The thing is that this is the way they decide to organize using their institutions. So what? This is a non-factor in any sort of discussion like this. > small business, so they have to limit the supply. Why?