4 ms·

>A plague on uber and Airbnb. May they both rot. Don't agree with that. It is a new model which have advantages and disadvantages. You would know if you are a

>A plague on uber and Airbnb. May they both rot. Don't agree with that. It is a new model which have advantages and disadvantages. You would know if you are a foreigner in a remote town and want to get a Taxi. If the model is bad the market will correct it eventually. I think what's bad is the VC's funding or persuading founders to continue to run with loss making business models for cornering the market. These companies then pump huge marketing money without a profitability in near future. That destroys the local competition if any and skew the market towards them for a while. Sometimes it will work out but many times it would fail. Again time will correct the practice if it's not sustainable, we have to wait. Also Airbnb and Uber have enabled lot of people earn livelihood without having to wait for trade union approvals for sharing taxi stands or getting hotel licences. If the model is sustainable it will go back to old models, but i feel it's gonna stay whether through Uber or other service(s). >import money to America from the world What about CocaCola, Pepsi, Amazon (and AWS) Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Nike and hundreds of other brands ?

sarakayakomzin 6y ago
>Don't agree with that. It is a new model which have advantages and disadvantages. You would know if you are a foreigner in a remote town and want to get a Taxi. If the model is bad the market will correct it eventually. "I don't care how much damage this does because it'll work out" >What about CocaCola, Pepsi, Amazon (and AWS) Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Nike and hundreds of other brands ? Sick whataboutism. Let's not talk about problems because other problems exist.
zwaps 6y ago
Well it is a two-sided platform market that may very well be sustainable. However it is set up to extract rents from both consumers and drivers, which is a problem for the latter. In effect, it captures profits from transportation markets and sends them to a company in the US. And that may be both sustainable, since its a platform market, and it may create suffering and poverty for many drivers. Handily, the existence and further political support for traditional taxis implies that a regulatory approach on competitive misconduct is unlikely. So these companies may not only be economically stable, but even in terms of competition policy. In any case, I hope you see the difference between companies selling a product, and those selling a platform, for a local economy.
oblio 6y ago
> If the model is bad the market will correct it eventually. The "model" of selling leaded gasoline took 90 years to correct. I'd venture to say that the market correcting itself after a lifetime is not what most people want. Not that I care in this case, just pointing out a flaw in this logic.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  It took that many years to collect enough research and attention on the topic, and then force the industry's hand by regulatory measures, and it only worked because when the lead phaseout started, there already were alternatives developed. Without all that, the market wouldn't self-correct at all. I mean, it's such a common failure mode of free markets, it should IMO be taught to kids in schools. If a product/service has damaging side effects that aren't immediately apparent, or the damage is diffuse, or takes a long time to manifest, then the market is blind to those costs. A product that mitigates these side effects is usually more expensive. Such a safer alternative isn't competitive on the market and won't succeed until it becomes as cheap as the less safe one (or cheaper than it). Conclusion being: don't expect the market to correct against profits on its own. In fact, it will resist correction, so for the change to happen, you need strong regulatory pressure and/or innovation aimed at making the correction more profitable. In reality, you need both.
  - saati 6y ago
    > Lead's toxicity was recognized and recorded as early as 2000 BC
  - mikestew 6y ago
    Not quite, it was known to be a bad idea at the time, and there were alternatives available. So...why? Because market control, patents, and the usual cast of idiots having nothing to do with "doing the right thing": https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-invented-180961368/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...
philjohn 6y ago
Except AirBNB has been shown to radically distort local housing markets.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> Also Airbnb and Uber have enabled lot of people earn livelihood without having to wait for trade union approvals for sharing taxi stands or getting hotel licences. There were reasons those approvals and licenses existed in the first place, as a lot of cities are learning right now. That said, shortcomings were also revealed. > but i feel it's gonna stay whether through Uber or other service(s). I don't mind the other services, in particular ones that can take what works and what doesn't, and do it like civilized people do - by working together with the cities to provide said benefits in a legally above-board framework, and without disastrous externalities. As for Uber, may it rot in hell. > What about CocaCola, Pepsi, Amazon (and AWS) Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Nike and hundreds of other brands ? I don't think any of these brands ever claimed they're a poor upstart fighting the good fight against the Evil Taxi Mafia (whereas in reality, they were VC-backed international corporation, leveraging their deep purse to conquer market after market, extinguishing local competitors).
mattacular 6y ago
We'll die waiting for market correction on climate.

sarakayakomzin 6y ago

>Don't agree with that. It is a new model which have advantages and disadvantages. You would know if you are a foreigner in a remote town and want to get a Taxi. If the model is bad the market will correct it eventually. "I don't care how much damage this does because it'll work out" >What about CocaCola, Pepsi, Amazon (and AWS) Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Nike and hundreds of other brands ? Sick whataboutism. Let's not talk about problems because other problems exist.

zwaps 6y ago

Well it is a two-sided platform market that may very well be sustainable. However it is set up to extract rents from both consumers and drivers, which is a problem for the latter. In effect, it captures profits from transportation markets and sends them to a company in the US. And that may be both sustainable, since its a platform market, and it may create suffering and poverty for many drivers. Handily, the existence and further political support for traditional taxis implies that a regulatory approach on competitive misconduct is unlikely. So these companies may not only be economically stable, but even in terms of competition policy. In any case, I hope you see the difference between companies selling a product, and those selling a platform, for a local economy.

oblio 6y ago

> If the model is bad the market will correct it eventually. The "model" of selling leaded gasoline took 90 years to correct. I'd venture to say that the market correcting itself after a lifetime is not what most people want. Not that I care in this case, just pointing out a flaw in this logic.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
It took that many years to collect enough research and attention on the topic, and then force the industry's hand by regulatory measures, and it only worked because when the lead phaseout started, there already were alternatives developed. Without all that, the market wouldn't self-correct at all. I mean, it's such a common failure mode of free markets, it should IMO be taught to kids in schools. If a product/service has damaging side effects that aren't immediately apparent, or the damage is diffuse, or takes a long time to manifest, then the market is blind to those costs. A product that mitigates these side effects is usually more expensive. Such a safer alternative isn't competitive on the market and won't succeed until it becomes as cheap as the less safe one (or cheaper than it). Conclusion being: don't expect the market to correct against profits on its own. In fact, it will resist correction, so for the change to happen, you need strong regulatory pressure and/or innovation aimed at making the correction more profitable. In reality, you need both.
- saati 6y ago
  > Lead's toxicity was recognized and recorded as early as 2000 BC
- mikestew 6y ago
  Not quite, it was known to be a bad idea at the time, and there were alternatives available. So...why? Because market control, patents, and the usual cast of idiots having nothing to do with "doing the right thing": https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-invented-180961368/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-...

philjohn 6y ago

Except AirBNB has been shown to radically distort local housing markets.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> Also Airbnb and Uber have enabled lot of people earn livelihood without having to wait for trade union approvals for sharing taxi stands or getting hotel licences. There were reasons those approvals and licenses existed in the first place, as a lot of cities are learning right now. That said, shortcomings were also revealed. > but i feel it's gonna stay whether through Uber or other service(s). I don't mind the other services, in particular ones that can take what works and what doesn't, and do it like civilized people do - by working together with the cities to provide said benefits in a legally above-board framework, and without disastrous externalities. As for Uber, may it rot in hell. > What about CocaCola, Pepsi, Amazon (and AWS) Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Nike and hundreds of other brands ? I don't think any of these brands ever claimed they're a poor upstart fighting the good fight against the Evil Taxi Mafia (whereas in reality, they were VC-backed international corporation, leveraging their deep purse to conquer market after market, extinguishing local competitors).

mattacular 6y ago

We'll die waiting for market correction on climate.