5 ms·

But should the costs be higher? So much of these costs are protectionist measures implemented by government to protect the interests of established businesses.

But should the costs be higher? So much of these costs are protectionist measures implemented by government to protect the interests of established businesses. To borrow a turn of phrase from the gun rights camp, business licenses, if they exist at all, should be low-cost and shall-issue.

mikeash 7y ago
So much of them are necessary measures to protect people, though. The trouble is distinguishing the two. For example, medallions are obviously and pretty explicitly a protectionist measure. On the other hand requirements to display fares clearly and use an approved meter are there to help customers from being ripped off.
- devdas 7y ago
  Medallions protect against the negative of there being too many taxis, causing congestion and revenue loss for drivers, which would lead to more dangerous driving and poorly maintained vehicles.
TulliusCicero 7y ago
Are they? In the quote at least, the vastly bigger expense is insurance, which is likely provided by the market based on statistics of some kind, not some arbitrary number from the government.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Yes, but "the market" has figured out that you can sue the pants off an insured business whereas an uninsured business is not worth paying a lawyer to go after. Just carrying the insurance makes you a higher risk of costing the insurance company money by itself. If insurance made financial sense to carry for the average or averagely unlucky operator the state wouldn't need to make it mandatory and drivers wouldn't grumble about it or at the very least it wouldn't be their primary gripe. They'd gripe about labor costs and labor laws like every other business does.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > Just carrying the insurance makes you a higher risk of costing the insurance company money by itself. Insurance companies aren't typically run as charities. > If insurance made financial sense to carry for the average or averagely unlucky operator the state wouldn't need to make it mandatory... The state is worried about the damage they can potentially cause to others. Their employees, their customers, innocent pedestrians, buildings. > They'd gripe about labor costs and labor laws like every other business does. That seems unlikely, considering the drivers are largely independent contractors. They don't tend to complain about labor costs, as they call them "profits".
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Insurance is for the victims, not the perpetrators who can just declare bankruptcy and go work for their brother's replacement company.
close04 7y ago
Maybe some costs are protectionist measures but I for one see plenty of value in having an actual insurance, or knowing that the car is properly checked, that the driver understands the concept of driving as a job, etc. Insurance being the biggest chunk, basically to make sure that you (the potential victim) can be compensated. Those costs are there to protect the regular person. Imagine "home" restaurants, where people can just sell food from their own kitchen with the same kind of regulatory oversight your private kitchen gets. What's the recourse when you eventually get sick or worse? Who do you blame for allowing this? How do you get compensated? There are good examples now where people argued against the value of regulation right up until they got burned (see the lack of regulation in crypto and how easily this was exploited with no recourse from the victims).

mikeash 7y ago

So much of them are necessary measures to protect people, though. The trouble is distinguishing the two. For example, medallions are obviously and pretty explicitly a protectionist measure. On the other hand requirements to display fares clearly and use an approved meter are there to help customers from being ripped off.

devdas 7y ago
Medallions protect against the negative of there being too many taxis, causing congestion and revenue loss for drivers, which would lead to more dangerous driving and poorly maintained vehicles.

TulliusCicero 7y ago

Are they? In the quote at least, the vastly bigger expense is insurance, which is likely provided by the market based on statistics of some kind, not some arbitrary number from the government.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Yes, but "the market" has figured out that you can sue the pants off an insured business whereas an uninsured business is not worth paying a lawyer to go after. Just carrying the insurance makes you a higher risk of costing the insurance company money by itself. If insurance made financial sense to carry for the average or averagely unlucky operator the state wouldn't need to make it mandatory and drivers wouldn't grumble about it or at the very least it wouldn't be their primary gripe. They'd gripe about labor costs and labor laws like every other business does.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > Just carrying the insurance makes you a higher risk of costing the insurance company money by itself. Insurance companies aren't typically run as charities. > If insurance made financial sense to carry for the average or averagely unlucky operator the state wouldn't need to make it mandatory... The state is worried about the damage they can potentially cause to others. Their employees, their customers, innocent pedestrians, buildings. > They'd gripe about labor costs and labor laws like every other business does. That seems unlikely, considering the drivers are largely independent contractors. They don't tend to complain about labor costs, as they call them "profits".
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Insurance is for the victims, not the perpetrators who can just declare bankruptcy and go work for their brother's replacement company.

close04 7y ago

Maybe some costs are protectionist measures but I for one see plenty of value in having an actual insurance, or knowing that the car is properly checked, that the driver understands the concept of driving as a job, etc. Insurance being the biggest chunk, basically to make sure that you (the potential victim) can be compensated. Those costs are there to protect the regular person. Imagine "home" restaurants, where people can just sell food from their own kitchen with the same kind of regulatory oversight your private kitchen gets. What's the recourse when you eventually get sick or worse? Who do you blame for allowing this? How do you get compensated? There are good examples now where people argued against the value of regulation right up until they got burned (see the lack of regulation in crypto and how easily this was exploited with no recourse from the victims).