> I don't agree that this is a negative long-term consequence, but I see your larger point. Do you think the government is capable of correcting problems such a

> I don't agree that this is a negative long-term consequence, but I see your larger point. Do you think the government is capable of correcting problems such as these without negative consequences? No I don't believe that it is possible to avoid negative consequences with government correction. That said I don't think it's possible to avoid negative consequences with strictly market solutions to certain classes of problems, so I think each case needs to be taken on its merits. With Uber and Lyft for example, I don't really see a problem with what they're providing people, in the same way I don't see a problem with check cashing stores or most classes of short term loan companies. The problem with Lyft and Uber IMHO is with how the service they provide interacts with the systems of today, a system where healthcare and benefits are tied to full-time employment. Gig economy companies compete quite favorably on price with companies offering full-time employment, meaning the country is shifting in parts from a workforce that had healthcare and benefits to one that doesn't. I think it's worth the government looking into its laws and the countries systems and wondering if there is a better way to classify employment and to have people acquire healthcare and benefits. > But what other metric is there? You intend for the government to regulate into existence preferable or desirable for everyone? > Should the government force people to do what's best for them against their will? In the case of broad market inefficiencies I think there is a case to be made for it. Tragedies of the commons, public health issues, etc.