3 ms·

> Do you also feel bad for the slumlord who spends a million dollars on a property that eventually gets condemned because he didn't take care of it? This is th

> Do you also feel bad for the slumlord who spends a million dollars on a property that eventually gets condemned because he didn't take care of it? This is the wrong analogy, for trivially obvious reasons. As I'm sure you're aware, the drop in value of taxi medallions wasn't contingent on the owner being a bad driver. Put plainly, even a driver who went above and beyond to provide honest, high-quality service was affected by the drop in values. To put it yet _another_ way, the fact that many taxi drivers provided shitty service couldn't be less relevant. Your analogy would only make sense if it was talking about an entire apt block got condemned due to multiple slumlords, including the apt owned by the guy who kept his property up to code and livable. Neither this nor the fact that the regulatory regime was horribly flawed change the fact that many drivers got screwed through no fault of their own because gov't policy was incompetent enough to create bad policy and fail to sustain it. Economic ownership of real estate as property is pretty bad economic policy too (cf Georgism) but that wouldn't change the fact that suddenly implementing a 100% LVT would 1) be infinitely better policy and 2) screw over an awful lot of people playing by the rules of the previous system, through no fault of their own.

CydeWeys 9y ago
> Neither this nor the fact that the regulatory regime was horribly flawed change the fact that many drivers got screwed through no fault of their own because gov't policy was incompetent enough to create bad policy and fail to sustain it. There's an important clarification here: Taxi drivers did not get screwed. It's medallion owners that got screwed. Yes, some of the drivers actually own their medallion, but many (most?) do not. Those who do not own their medallion didn't really get screwed, not more than anyone who gets laid off or has to change industries anyway. Many of them are simply driving for ridesharing companies now. The medallion owners who got screwed do partially have themselves to blame, because they saw the outrageously inflated prices for medallions and chose to pay them anyway. It's like the mortgage crisis; at least some of the blame goes on the people who saw the absurd prices and chose to pay them anyway, and then got left holding the bag when the collapse hit.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  TL;DR: In an economy with government involvement as heavy as ours[1], it's ludicrous to claim that people should not only know the "true" value of something but know precisely when the gov't is going to decide that the market value should be allowed to revert to its "true" value. > Taxi drivers did not get screwed. It's medallion owners that got screwed Right, good catch, I wasn't thinking about that fact. That's not central to my point but it is a good point to clarify. > The medallion owners who got screwed do partially have themselves to blame, because they saw the outrageously inflated prices for medallions and chose to pay them anyway. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. What is the "true" value of a taxi medallion, in a regulatory context where the government is setting the supply? If we implement [insert optimal healthcare policy] and (hypothetically), doctor salaries drop precipitously, are doctors to blame for seeing how "outrageously inflated" med school tuition was and choosing to pay it anyway? Should they have stayed out of the field entirely until healthcare policy in this country is perfectly optimal? For the life of me, I'll never understand the lack of empathy required to see someone get screwed by unstable rules and conclude "well, it's your own damn fault: you should have been born one of the X-Men, with the ability to predict the future perfectly and realize that this particular inefficient policy regime was going to be disavowed at this exact time". Providing a stable legal framework is one of the most basic and most important jobs of a gov't, and making changes like suddenly deciding to stop enforcement of policy that the industry has been dealing with for decades is what legal scholars call "a dick move". Here's another example which might be more directly relatable: if you buy a house in California and Prop 13 gets repealed or if you own real estate anywhere and our idiotic policy regime around real estate gets fixed: you'd suddenly lose a huge portion of your life savings, but you'd have yourself to blame because "you saw the outrageously inflated prices and chose to pay them anyway"? Bear in mind that even if you were intellectually consistent here and agreed that those homeowners are to blame, that would be terrible advice for the literally centuries' worth of landowners/homeowners in whose lifetimes real estate policy wasn't made efficient or fair, and real estate value growth accrued to arbitrary people through rent-seeking. [1] Not that that's a bad thing necessarily
  - ams6110 9y ago
    What is the "true" value of a taxi medallion, in a regulatory context where the government is setting the supply? You can compute the present value of the total profit you can expect to earn (average fares less expenses including the medallion) and if it's less than what the medallion costs, the medallion is overpriced.
tw04 9y ago
Really? It's that bad? OK - prior to Uber breaking onto the scene, which cab company in Chicago: 1. Provided universally clean cabs. 2. Provided an app that allowed me to easily acquire a cab without having to jump through hoops, as well as gave me real-time info on where the cab was at. 3. Provided an easy method for me to provide feedback on my driver so that they could weed out troublesome drivers. 4. allowed me to pay them without having to go through the trouble of carrying cash. You know, all the reasons the new services are winning. The fact medallion owners provided a shitty experience is ENTIRELY RELEVANT. There NEVER WOULD'VE BEEN A MARKET FOR UBER, if the taxi companies were holding up their end of the bargain. Beginning and end of story.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  Dude, what are you talking about? I don't disagree with any of your bullet points. I like Uber, I'm a heavy user, and I'm glad they exist. None of that changes the fact that the gov't had bad policy for twenty years and then screwed over the people who decided to operate within the policy regime. I've provided ample examples above: you can't decide that every taxi operator and medallion-holder deserves getting screwed by dishonest gov't without deciding that the same is true of every doctor and homeowner in the country. Hell, you'd be hard-pressed to find an industry _is_ run fully optimally, so you're basically throwing the entire concept of a stable regulatory environment out the window, which is just ludicrous.

CydeWeys 9y ago

> Neither this nor the fact that the regulatory regime was horribly flawed change the fact that many drivers got screwed through no fault of their own because gov't policy was incompetent enough to create bad policy and fail to sustain it. There's an important clarification here: Taxi drivers did not get screwed. It's medallion owners that got screwed. Yes, some of the drivers actually own their medallion, but many (most?) do not. Those who do not own their medallion didn't really get screwed, not more than anyone who gets laid off or has to change industries anyway. Many of them are simply driving for ridesharing companies now. The medallion owners who got screwed do partially have themselves to blame, because they saw the outrageously inflated prices for medallions and chose to pay them anyway. It's like the mortgage crisis; at least some of the blame goes on the people who saw the absurd prices and chose to pay them anyway, and then got left holding the bag when the collapse hit.

wutbrodo 9y ago
TL;DR: In an economy with government involvement as heavy as ours[1], it's ludicrous to claim that people should not only know the "true" value of something but know precisely when the gov't is going to decide that the market value should be allowed to revert to its "true" value. > Taxi drivers did not get screwed. It's medallion owners that got screwed Right, good catch, I wasn't thinking about that fact. That's not central to my point but it is a good point to clarify. > The medallion owners who got screwed do partially have themselves to blame, because they saw the outrageously inflated prices for medallions and chose to pay them anyway. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. What is the "true" value of a taxi medallion, in a regulatory context where the government is setting the supply? If we implement [insert optimal healthcare policy] and (hypothetically), doctor salaries drop precipitously, are doctors to blame for seeing how "outrageously inflated" med school tuition was and choosing to pay it anyway? Should they have stayed out of the field entirely until healthcare policy in this country is perfectly optimal? For the life of me, I'll never understand the lack of empathy required to see someone get screwed by unstable rules and conclude "well, it's your own damn fault: you should have been born one of the X-Men, with the ability to predict the future perfectly and realize that this particular inefficient policy regime was going to be disavowed at this exact time". Providing a stable legal framework is one of the most basic and most important jobs of a gov't, and making changes like suddenly deciding to stop enforcement of policy that the industry has been dealing with for decades is what legal scholars call "a dick move". Here's another example which might be more directly relatable: if you buy a house in California and Prop 13 gets repealed or if you own real estate anywhere and our idiotic policy regime around real estate gets fixed: you'd suddenly lose a huge portion of your life savings, but you'd have yourself to blame because "you saw the outrageously inflated prices and chose to pay them anyway"? Bear in mind that even if you were intellectually consistent here and agreed that those homeowners are to blame, that would be terrible advice for the literally centuries' worth of landowners/homeowners in whose lifetimes real estate policy wasn't made efficient or fair, and real estate value growth accrued to arbitrary people through rent-seeking. [1] Not that that's a bad thing necessarily
- ams6110 9y ago
  What is the "true" value of a taxi medallion, in a regulatory context where the government is setting the supply? You can compute the present value of the total profit you can expect to earn (average fares less expenses including the medallion) and if it's less than what the medallion costs, the medallion is overpriced.

tw04 9y ago

Really? It's that bad? OK - prior to Uber breaking onto the scene, which cab company in Chicago: 1. Provided universally clean cabs. 2. Provided an app that allowed me to easily acquire a cab without having to jump through hoops, as well as gave me real-time info on where the cab was at. 3. Provided an easy method for me to provide feedback on my driver so that they could weed out troublesome drivers. 4. allowed me to pay them without having to go through the trouble of carrying cash. You know, all the reasons the new services are winning. The fact medallion owners provided a shitty experience is ENTIRELY RELEVANT. There NEVER WOULD'VE BEEN A MARKET FOR UBER, if the taxi companies were holding up their end of the bargain. Beginning and end of story.

wutbrodo 9y ago
Dude, what are you talking about? I don't disagree with any of your bullet points. I like Uber, I'm a heavy user, and I'm glad they exist. None of that changes the fact that the gov't had bad policy for twenty years and then screwed over the people who decided to operate within the policy regime. I've provided ample examples above: you can't decide that every taxi operator and medallion-holder deserves getting screwed by dishonest gov't without deciding that the same is true of every doctor and homeowner in the country. Hell, you'd be hard-pressed to find an industry _is_ run fully optimally, so you're basically throwing the entire concept of a stable regulatory environment out the window, which is just ludicrous.