4 ms·

For now, sure, but you may have missed the word "monopoly". Fact is, Uber is running an unsustainable business in a lot of markets to gain market share. It's a

For now, sure, but you may have missed the word "monopoly". Fact is, Uber is running an unsustainable business in a lot of markets to gain market share. It's anticompetitive business practice. Free market fanboys will argue that the issue will fix itself after Uber raises prices - thus allowing more healthy competition, but this takes time. Not everyone can drive or rely on public transportation. In modern society, transport is a utility, and to act like people can simply "not use" a taxi service is ridiculous.

Nursie 9y ago
> Free market fanboys will argue that the issue will fix itself after Uber raises prices - thus allowing more healthy competition Yup, by which time the current players may well have been driven out by the undercutting. Not really a sign of 'healthy' competition.
- kofejnik 9y ago
  I would welcome the current taxis going bust
crdoconnor 9y ago
>Free market fanboys will argue that the issue will fix itself after Uber raises prices The "issue" will likely fix itself by uber going under and losing all of its investors their money in a spectacular and richly deserved hubristic implosion. What uber is attempting has been managed before (e.g. the 'bus wars') but it's unlikely they will achieve a sustainable monopoly.
alexasmyths 9y ago
"For now, sure, but you may have missed the word "monopoly"." The Taxi business in every city is a 'monopoly'. Shares in this 'rent seeking entity' are bought by owning 'medallions'. It's hypocritical that a cabal of local medallion owning rent-seekers want to attack Uber for their 'monopolistic' practices. The cab drivers who don't own medallions aren't getting much out of it. Uber is not a monopoly, nor has it been demonstrated that their drivers are 'more unsafe' than other drivers. Love or loathe Uber - this is a political move - and it's scary. A government can come along and arbitrarily decide they 'don't like you because you're foreign' or whatever and ban you from doing business? If London wants to make 'cabs outside of those holding medallions' illegal, I would disagree with it, but it would be fair at least. It seems that there is room for competition in London in terms of taxi services. 40 000 people are going to be out of a job - let's say 1/2 are full time - that's 20 000 jobs. Literally, a US 'startup' creates 20 000 jobs for people in London alone using tech - and the Mayor squashes it? 'We don't want jobs' is the essence of his argument. It would seem there's quite a lot of rent-seeking in the Black-cab business if London can sustain an additional 20K full time drivers, that can't be ignored.
- Nursie 9y ago
  >> The Taxi business in every city is a 'monopoly'. Shares in this 'rent seeking entity' are bought by owning 'medallions'. This is just not true, and the medallion system doesn't seem to exist outside of the US. The rest of your post is just as much nonsense. There's a whole list of reasons Uber are having this happen, and none of it's political. Oh, and according to Uber, they aren't jobs - or else they'd have to comply with employment law, something else they'd rather avoid.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    " they aren't jobs" Just 'let them eat cake' then? This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income - most of them at the lower end of the economic scale - and the millions of users of Uber for whom Black cabs are just too expensive, because medallions or not - the system is de-facto a controlled economy. I highly doubt that a fairly operationally competent entity such as Uber would simply fail to supply some information or adhere to some basic regs when the writing was clearly on the wall that they needed to do so or lose their license. This from the BBC: "But a wave of bad publicity about its corporate culture, its lax attitude to checks on its drivers and its treatment of this freelance army seems to have spurred TfL into action." - i.e. a populist action.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      >> I highly doubt... Yet that's exactly what has happened in multiple markets now. Uber have a history of pulling this stuff. --edit-- and now I'm back at a real keyboard: >> This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income So by that logic we should allow any company to continue to operate, regardless of how badly behaved? I don't think this argument has much merit, especially when unemployment is at a record low and there is clearly a lot of appetite for services in this sector. >> i.e. a populist action. Which must mean it's wrong, obviously? That couldn't be a wave of information coming to light about how bad they are, and how they are not in line with regulations?

Nursie 9y ago

> Free market fanboys will argue that the issue will fix itself after Uber raises prices - thus allowing more healthy competition Yup, by which time the current players may well have been driven out by the undercutting. Not really a sign of 'healthy' competition.

kofejnik 9y ago
I would welcome the current taxis going bust

crdoconnor 9y ago

>Free market fanboys will argue that the issue will fix itself after Uber raises prices The "issue" will likely fix itself by uber going under and losing all of its investors their money in a spectacular and richly deserved hubristic implosion. What uber is attempting has been managed before (e.g. the 'bus wars') but it's unlikely they will achieve a sustainable monopoly.

alexasmyths 9y ago

"For now, sure, but you may have missed the word "monopoly"." The Taxi business in every city is a 'monopoly'. Shares in this 'rent seeking entity' are bought by owning 'medallions'. It's hypocritical that a cabal of local medallion owning rent-seekers want to attack Uber for their 'monopolistic' practices. The cab drivers who don't own medallions aren't getting much out of it. Uber is not a monopoly, nor has it been demonstrated that their drivers are 'more unsafe' than other drivers. Love or loathe Uber - this is a political move - and it's scary. A government can come along and arbitrarily decide they 'don't like you because you're foreign' or whatever and ban you from doing business? If London wants to make 'cabs outside of those holding medallions' illegal, I would disagree with it, but it would be fair at least. It seems that there is room for competition in London in terms of taxi services. 40 000 people are going to be out of a job - let's say 1/2 are full time - that's 20 000 jobs. Literally, a US 'startup' creates 20 000 jobs for people in London alone using tech - and the Mayor squashes it? 'We don't want jobs' is the essence of his argument. It would seem there's quite a lot of rent-seeking in the Black-cab business if London can sustain an additional 20K full time drivers, that can't be ignored.

Nursie 9y ago
>> The Taxi business in every city is a 'monopoly'. Shares in this 'rent seeking entity' are bought by owning 'medallions'. This is just not true, and the medallion system doesn't seem to exist outside of the US. The rest of your post is just as much nonsense. There's a whole list of reasons Uber are having this happen, and none of it's political. Oh, and according to Uber, they aren't jobs - or else they'd have to comply with employment law, something else they'd rather avoid.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  " they aren't jobs" Just 'let them eat cake' then? This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income - most of them at the lower end of the economic scale - and the millions of users of Uber for whom Black cabs are just too expensive, because medallions or not - the system is de-facto a controlled economy. I highly doubt that a fairly operationally competent entity such as Uber would simply fail to supply some information or adhere to some basic regs when the writing was clearly on the wall that they needed to do so or lose their license. This from the BBC: "But a wave of bad publicity about its corporate culture, its lax attitude to checks on its drivers and its treatment of this freelance army seems to have spurred TfL into action." - i.e. a populist action.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    >> I highly doubt... Yet that's exactly what has happened in multiple markets now. Uber have a history of pulling this stuff. --edit-- and now I'm back at a real keyboard: >> This is really quite insulting to the 20 000 - 40 000 people who are about to lose their source of income So by that logic we should allow any company to continue to operate, regardless of how badly behaved? I don't think this argument has much merit, especially when unemployment is at a record low and there is clearly a lot of appetite for services in this sector. >> i.e. a populist action. Which must mean it's wrong, obviously? That couldn't be a wave of information coming to light about how bad they are, and how they are not in line with regulations?