4 ms·

> I think the difference is that companies exploit an entire regulatory system which is harder to update and takes longer. Airbnb, Uber, Mechanical Turk, are al

by 394549 8y ago

> I think the difference is that companies exploit an entire regulatory system which is harder to update and takes longer. Airbnb, Uber, Mechanical Turk, are all examples of exploiting a regulatory system by creating a product and then quickly scaling it up to mass adoption before the practices introduced can be outlawed. > Once something has been massively adopted it's difficult to stop completely. > ... > However, I do think that democracy needs to find a way to keep up with the forces taking advantage of its inherent systematic boundaries, such as being slow to react. I'm not sure what needs to change but I think when you have many US citizens participating in completely unregulated labor markets there is a problem that needs to be solved. I think the solution is that it be made very clear to the companies pushing the regulatory boundaries (and their fans) that they should be prepared to have their business models destroyed when the regulatory environment catches up. Call it "Creative Destruction 2.0."

chooseaname 8y ago
That won't work. They'll just help a particular, ahem, corporate friendly party get and stay in office.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  It's worked in the past. What other option is there?
michaelbuckbee 8y ago
This feels too harsh. It's not that either the business models need destroyed or that regulations should never change, but that some middle ground is worked out that benefits society at large. All the services we're talking about have both real utility and (for the most part) unplanned costs and impacts. The Taxi Medallion system is/was horribly corrupt and inefficient. Uber (for all their faults) is an improvement in terms of safety, convenience and less discriminatory practices. Similarly, AirBnB isn't defacto a horrible presence in cities (tons of great experiences), but hosts should abide by neighborhood norms, pay hotel taxes, etc.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Uber, for all its faults, may be a vast improvement on the USA approach to taxis. In many of the other countries Uber has presence it has done damage to a sector that was not horribly corrupt or inefficient. Yet the workers and governments still have to react to rule breaking that effectively treats everywhere on the planet as some US city with a broken and corrupt taxi system. In the UK I would call Uber a very marginal increase in convenience (all taxis have apps if that's your preferred method), but absolutely and demonstrably significantly worse in terms of safety, discriminatory practices, and worker's incomes. So overall I don't think it is too harsh, at least here.

by 394549 8y ago

chooseaname 8y ago

That won't work. They'll just help a particular, ahem, corporate friendly party get and stay in office.

emodendroket 8y ago
It's worked in the past. What other option is there?

michaelbuckbee 8y ago

This feels too harsh. It's not that either the business models need destroyed or that regulations should never change, but that some middle ground is worked out that benefits society at large. All the services we're talking about have both real utility and (for the most part) unplanned costs and impacts. The Taxi Medallion system is/was horribly corrupt and inefficient. Uber (for all their faults) is an improvement in terms of safety, convenience and less discriminatory practices. Similarly, AirBnB isn't defacto a horrible presence in cities (tons of great experiences), but hosts should abide by neighborhood norms, pay hotel taxes, etc.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Uber, for all its faults, may be a vast improvement on the USA approach to taxis. In many of the other countries Uber has presence it has done damage to a sector that was not horribly corrupt or inefficient. Yet the workers and governments still have to react to rule breaking that effectively treats everywhere on the planet as some US city with a broken and corrupt taxi system. In the UK I would call Uber a very marginal increase in convenience (all taxis have apps if that's your preferred method), but absolutely and demonstrably significantly worse in terms of safety, discriminatory practices, and worker's incomes. So overall I don't think it is too harsh, at least here.