3 ms·

"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

"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?
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      Uber are not the best behaved lot - I understand. But they are not stupid. If they were given only a '4 month extension' in London - and told to 'comply' with certain things - this is a very direct 'shot across the bow'. Uber creeped into markets 'under the radar' - but when the regulators are directly holding your business hostage - and are saying point-blank: 'do these things or no permit' - it's time to believe them. Uber is not stupid. They know the difference between 'being under the radar' - and when things are 'for real'. They can ignore city councillors here and there, but this was not that. Uber is, if anything operationally competent. They'd have had a legal team, strategy sessions etc. on this. It's London - maybe their #2 largest market globally (or at least top 5) - so they're not going to screw around on this. If Uber was definitely continuing to cheat - and if they were definitely non-compliant, and there were in fact 'a lot of rapes' or whatever with Uber ... then I have no problem with them being banned. But I believe this is a hugely political move - irrespective of what Uber was and was not. European regulators from bottom-to-top have been attacking American companies with special regulations. Apple had to pay a 'magical' $25B tax bill. EU regulators are now trying to create special 'google' and 'Facebook' taxes. They want Uber off their turf. It's politics and geopolitics as much as anything. And there is a strong whiff of economic protectionism. It's entirely possible that Uber was just breaking all the rules - but it would also be very naive to not see the geopolitical interplay here. It's how 100% of international business works. There's no such thing as 'free trade' in reality.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > This is just not true, and the medallion system doesn't seem to exist outside of the US. We have licenses in argentina which are basically the same. While the taxi drivers that are unionized flipped out cars and threw stones at Uber offices down here, they claimed Uber wasnt safe. At least 50% of taxis in argentina dont have working seatbelts.
  - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    Seat belt? Most taxis in china hide that under the seat cover.

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?
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    Uber are not the best behaved lot - I understand. But they are not stupid. If they were given only a '4 month extension' in London - and told to 'comply' with certain things - this is a very direct 'shot across the bow'. Uber creeped into markets 'under the radar' - but when the regulators are directly holding your business hostage - and are saying point-blank: 'do these things or no permit' - it's time to believe them. Uber is not stupid. They know the difference between 'being under the radar' - and when things are 'for real'. They can ignore city councillors here and there, but this was not that. Uber is, if anything operationally competent. They'd have had a legal team, strategy sessions etc. on this. It's London - maybe their #2 largest market globally (or at least top 5) - so they're not going to screw around on this. If Uber was definitely continuing to cheat - and if they were definitely non-compliant, and there were in fact 'a lot of rapes' or whatever with Uber ... then I have no problem with them being banned. But I believe this is a hugely political move - irrespective of what Uber was and was not. European regulators from bottom-to-top have been attacking American companies with special regulations. Apple had to pay a 'magical' $25B tax bill. EU regulators are now trying to create special 'google' and 'Facebook' taxes. They want Uber off their turf. It's politics and geopolitics as much as anything. And there is a strong whiff of economic protectionism. It's entirely possible that Uber was just breaking all the rules - but it would also be very naive to not see the geopolitical interplay here. It's how 100% of international business works. There's no such thing as 'free trade' in reality.
conanbatt 9y ago
> This is just not true, and the medallion system doesn't seem to exist outside of the US. We have licenses in argentina which are basically the same. While the taxi drivers that are unionized flipped out cars and threw stones at Uber offices down here, they claimed Uber wasnt safe. At least 50% of taxis in argentina dont have working seatbelts.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Seat belt? Most taxis in china hide that under the seat cover.