8 ms·

> These days, I feel like I'm in a twilight zone where 'wealth creation' is happening by putting a fresh face on 3rd-world country business models. It's not a

> These days, I feel like I'm in a twilight zone where 'wealth creation' is happening by putting a fresh face on 3rd-world country business models. It's not a secret that lots of business models coming out of Silicon Valley are just regulatory workarounds/loopholes. It's a matter of chance that they coincide with some 3rd world country models as the latter's fuels are survival/corruption/perceived lawlessness while over here it's 'disruption'/first-to-market and the drive to become a temporary monopoly on a regulatory loophole.

reaperducer 8y ago
"Disruption" is SV for "Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission."
- ohyeshedid 8y ago
  Technology always outpaces legislation.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    That’s a popular SV cliche, but it’s not true. For example, without the DMCA, neither Twitter nor YouTube would exist.
  - decebalus1 8y ago
    mmm.. yes and no. Sometimes is outpaces legislation (self-driving cars, cryptocurrencies, all the privacy things) but more than often it just finds a vulnerability in the unspecified existing legislation/regulation (see airbnb, uber, lyft).
roymurdock 8y ago
cost savings/increased efficiency is the name of the game, and first world regulations are costs SV can ignore. sometimes the quasi employees suffer the burden (but get increased flexibility), sometimes the consumer suffers (lower price but increased variance in quality of goods/service)
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > cost savings/increased efficiency is the name of the game I'd say "socializing losses, privatizing gains" is the name of the game. Those popular disruptive startups dump plenty of externalities on everyone around them. Don't think for a moment that anyone there is increasing efficiency for the sake of increasing efficiency globally; it's just disrupting the society and hoping money pours through the cracks.
  - decebalus1 8y ago
    > "socializing losses, privatizing gains" Never seen this formulated as such but I really like it. I was reading a book which tangentially dealt with that [0]. It changed my perspective on how new businesses are increasingly externalizing their costs to the consumers. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Work-Unpaid-Unseen-Jobs/dp/1619027364 https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Work-Unpaid-Unseen-Jobs/dp/161...
    - SaltyBackendGuy 8y ago
      > "socializing losses, privatizing gains" I also have never head it put quite this way, and realize how true it is. One example is American Football stadiums. Get the people to pay for it and charge them to go there.
    - gizmo686 8y ago
      I don't think "externalizing their costs to the consumers" really makes sense. In an idealized market, costs should be passed onto the consumer. From what I can tell, the book you reference is just complaining that this cost changed from money to labor. It is also worth noting that, in many cases, this results in a net win for the consumer. Eg, whwn I buy from a full service gas station, I am paying someone to pump my gas, and paying the to sit idle waiting for customers, and paying (in time) to wait for them to finish. In contrast, in self service, the only cost from above I have is 1 person pumping gas (which switched from being paid with money, to being paid with labor)
      - 8y ago
stcredzero 8y ago
It's a matter of chance that they coincide with some 3rd world country models as the latter's fuels are survival/corruption/perceived lawlessness It's not a matter of chance. The earlier government regulation was better than no regulation, but had significant downsides. Taxi regulation got corrupt and the market didn't work very well. Uber and company came in with technology that worked better than the old government bureaucracy at cleaning up and regulating the market. I can't attest to how well Fiverr works.
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago
  Uber and company came in with technology that worked better than the old government bureaucracy at cleaning up and regulating the market. To me, at least, this assertion requires some substantiation. It seems to me that what Uber has been better at than traditional taxi services is solely the technology. I can only expect to hail a taxi on demand if I'm in a big city, airport, train station, or other transit center; if I'm in a rural area, suburb, or even a smaller city, I'll probably have to call to arrange a pickup and hope it actually arrives. (My personal luck with calling for taxis has been...spotty at best, while for Uber and Lyft so far it's been 100%.) But "cleaning up and regulating the market?" I don't see how ride-sharing services are doing anything to regulate the market, and "cleaning up" is pretty hard to measure. Ride shares tend to be cheaper than taxis, and I don't doubt that part of the cost of a taxi fare is due to regulation -- but a large part of it comes from the uncomfortable fact that Uber and Lyft are both subsidizing rides with VC money. If they actually charged enough for the ride to make a profit, average ride prices would easily double. Also, while taxi regulation is pretty corrupt, well, Uber is maybe not the poster child we want for how unregulated companies are gonna do better on that front.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    To me, at least, this assertion requires some substantiation. Taxis used to be smelly and dirty. Drivers were quite cavalier in their attitudes towards customers. Hailing a taxi was difficult and chancy. I was scammed by drivers who would take me on indirect routes for more money. It seems to me that what Uber has been better at than traditional taxi services is solely the technology. That is precisely the point. I don't see how ride-sharing services are doing anything to regulate the market, and "cleaning up" is pretty hard to measure. There are now rapid and technologically mediated consequences for both drivers and riders for behaving badly. Uber drivers are always polite, and riders are always polite. Riders are now strongly motivated to never keep their drivers waiting, which was not the case for taxis. The vehicles smell better! Drivers never scam you by driving a circuitous route. It's pretty obvious to me that the market is much better regulated through the technology. Also, while taxi regulation is pretty corrupt, well, Uber is maybe not the poster child we want for how unregulated companies are gonna do better on that front. The point is that while Uber is far from a poster child -- no argument there -- the technology (read: the rapid flow of accurate information in the market) still has them doing a better job than regulatory mechanisms from the 20th century.

reaperducer 8y ago

"Disruption" is SV for "Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission."

ohyeshedid 8y ago
Technology always outpaces legislation.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  That’s a popular SV cliche, but it’s not true. For example, without the DMCA, neither Twitter nor YouTube would exist.
- decebalus1 8y ago
  mmm.. yes and no. Sometimes is outpaces legislation (self-driving cars, cryptocurrencies, all the privacy things) but more than often it just finds a vulnerability in the unspecified existing legislation/regulation (see airbnb, uber, lyft).

roymurdock 8y ago

cost savings/increased efficiency is the name of the game, and first world regulations are costs SV can ignore. sometimes the quasi employees suffer the burden (but get increased flexibility), sometimes the consumer suffers (lower price but increased variance in quality of goods/service)

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> cost savings/increased efficiency is the name of the game I'd say "socializing losses, privatizing gains" is the name of the game. Those popular disruptive startups dump plenty of externalities on everyone around them. Don't think for a moment that anyone there is increasing efficiency for the sake of increasing efficiency globally; it's just disrupting the society and hoping money pours through the cracks.
- decebalus1 8y ago
  > "socializing losses, privatizing gains" Never seen this formulated as such but I really like it. I was reading a book which tangentially dealt with that [0]. It changed my perspective on how new businesses are increasingly externalizing their costs to the consumers. [0] https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Work-Unpaid-Unseen-Jobs/dp/1619027364 https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Work-Unpaid-Unseen-Jobs/dp/161...
  - SaltyBackendGuy 8y ago
    > "socializing losses, privatizing gains" I also have never head it put quite this way, and realize how true it is. One example is American Football stadiums. Get the people to pay for it and charge them to go there.
  - gizmo686 8y ago
    I don't think "externalizing their costs to the consumers" really makes sense. In an idealized market, costs should be passed onto the consumer. From what I can tell, the book you reference is just complaining that this cost changed from money to labor. It is also worth noting that, in many cases, this results in a net win for the consumer. Eg, whwn I buy from a full service gas station, I am paying someone to pump my gas, and paying the to sit idle waiting for customers, and paying (in time) to wait for them to finish. In contrast, in self service, the only cost from above I have is 1 person pumping gas (which switched from being paid with money, to being paid with labor)
    - 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago

It's a matter of chance that they coincide with some 3rd world country models as the latter's fuels are survival/corruption/perceived lawlessness It's not a matter of chance. The earlier government regulation was better than no regulation, but had significant downsides. Taxi regulation got corrupt and the market didn't work very well. Uber and company came in with technology that worked better than the old government bureaucracy at cleaning up and regulating the market. I can't attest to how well Fiverr works.

chipotle_coyote 8y ago
Uber and company came in with technology that worked better than the old government bureaucracy at cleaning up and regulating the market. To me, at least, this assertion requires some substantiation. It seems to me that what Uber has been better at than traditional taxi services is solely the technology. I can only expect to hail a taxi on demand if I'm in a big city, airport, train station, or other transit center; if I'm in a rural area, suburb, or even a smaller city, I'll probably have to call to arrange a pickup and hope it actually arrives. (My personal luck with calling for taxis has been...spotty at best, while for Uber and Lyft so far it's been 100%.) But "cleaning up and regulating the market?" I don't see how ride-sharing services are doing anything to regulate the market, and "cleaning up" is pretty hard to measure. Ride shares tend to be cheaper than taxis, and I don't doubt that part of the cost of a taxi fare is due to regulation -- but a large part of it comes from the uncomfortable fact that Uber and Lyft are both subsidizing rides with VC money. If they actually charged enough for the ride to make a profit, average ride prices would easily double. Also, while taxi regulation is pretty corrupt, well, Uber is maybe not the poster child we want for how unregulated companies are gonna do better on that front.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  To me, at least, this assertion requires some substantiation. Taxis used to be smelly and dirty. Drivers were quite cavalier in their attitudes towards customers. Hailing a taxi was difficult and chancy. I was scammed by drivers who would take me on indirect routes for more money. It seems to me that what Uber has been better at than traditional taxi services is solely the technology. That is precisely the point. I don't see how ride-sharing services are doing anything to regulate the market, and "cleaning up" is pretty hard to measure. There are now rapid and technologically mediated consequences for both drivers and riders for behaving badly. Uber drivers are always polite, and riders are always polite. Riders are now strongly motivated to never keep their drivers waiting, which was not the case for taxis. The vehicles smell better! Drivers never scam you by driving a circuitous route. It's pretty obvious to me that the market is much better regulated through the technology. Also, while taxi regulation is pretty corrupt, well, Uber is maybe not the poster child we want for how unregulated companies are gonna do better on that front. The point is that while Uber is far from a poster child -- no argument there -- the technology (read: the rapid flow of accurate information in the market) still has them doing a better job than regulatory mechanisms from the 20th century.