4 ms·

I think when there’s negative externalities, you need to target those externalities and let the underlying businesses decide if and how to adapt. If people want

I think when there’s negative externalities, you need to target those externalities and let the underlying businesses decide if and how to adapt. If people want delivery instead of a “grazing” shopping experience, you can’t legislate your way out of that. Mandating that your city doesn’t change is never successful in the long run. But you can target the externalities. From the Reuters article: > Complaints include restocking and delivery going on 24 hours a day as well as traffic hazards from racing scooters. This is where action should be focused.

noobermin 5y ago
You make a prescription without explaining why. Regulating scooters or bike traffic has external effects on those who use scooters or bikes (a huge fraction in the Netherlands of road users), why not target the source if you know the source?
- helen___keller 5y ago
  I didn’t prescribe a specific regulation, in fact, I simply said that the issue is the externalities not the source, so that’s where energy should be focused. I think it’s naive to assume banning the storefronts fixes the externality. The real source is people wanting delivery. What if we don’t fix the courier traffic because everyone moves from dark storefront delivery to UberEat style apps that order shopping+delivery from non-dark storefronts? Or what if apps form deals with local stores to make hybrid in person / delivery storefronts, giving us the same externalities but non-dark storefronts?
MisterSandman 5y ago
> If people want delivery instead of a “grazing” shopping experience, you can’t legislate your way out of that. It isn't as simple as that. People think they want delivery instead of a shopping experience. More specifically, people think they want this because it is being (a) heavily advertised to them, and (b) heavily subsidized to them. The public aren't being given all of the information. Right now, most delivery apps have free or very very low delivery fees because of VC money, with the end-goal being to monopolize the market and jack up the prices when people are either too dependent on these services, or local alternatives stop existing. The average consumer doesn't know this - they just think that this tech company has somehow made it financially feasible to charge someone $5 to get me my groceries/food from halfway across town. It's what Uber did, and most people are annoyed with Uber's current prices (or ambivalent to it, simiilar to how it was with Taxis). Except this is much worse, because Uber just changed how the business was run - delivery apps are changing how we buy and consume things, which would be much harder to recover from.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  Antitrust laws exist. Rather than outlawing the industry itself, outlaw monopoly > More specifically, people think they want this because it is being (a) heavily advertised to them, and (b) heavily subsidized to them. The public aren't being given all of the information. I don’t agree with (a), people aren’t stupid and every industry has advertising. (b) is a serious problem and deserves consideration without respect to the specific industry.

noobermin 5y ago

You make a prescription without explaining why. Regulating scooters or bike traffic has external effects on those who use scooters or bikes (a huge fraction in the Netherlands of road users), why not target the source if you know the source?

helen___keller 5y ago
I didn’t prescribe a specific regulation, in fact, I simply said that the issue is the externalities not the source, so that’s where energy should be focused. I think it’s naive to assume banning the storefronts fixes the externality. The real source is people wanting delivery. What if we don’t fix the courier traffic because everyone moves from dark storefront delivery to UberEat style apps that order shopping+delivery from non-dark storefronts? Or what if apps form deals with local stores to make hybrid in person / delivery storefronts, giving us the same externalities but non-dark storefronts?

MisterSandman 5y ago

> If people want delivery instead of a “grazing” shopping experience, you can’t legislate your way out of that. It isn't as simple as that. People think they want delivery instead of a shopping experience. More specifically, people think they want this because it is being (a) heavily advertised to them, and (b) heavily subsidized to them. The public aren't being given all of the information. Right now, most delivery apps have free or very very low delivery fees because of VC money, with the end-goal being to monopolize the market and jack up the prices when people are either too dependent on these services, or local alternatives stop existing. The average consumer doesn't know this - they just think that this tech company has somehow made it financially feasible to charge someone $5 to get me my groceries/food from halfway across town. It's what Uber did, and most people are annoyed with Uber's current prices (or ambivalent to it, simiilar to how it was with Taxis). Except this is much worse, because Uber just changed how the business was run - delivery apps are changing how we buy and consume things, which would be much harder to recover from.

helen___keller 5y ago
Antitrust laws exist. Rather than outlawing the industry itself, outlaw monopoly > More specifically, people think they want this because it is being (a) heavily advertised to them, and (b) heavily subsidized to them. The public aren't being given all of the information. I don’t agree with (a), people aren’t stupid and every industry has advertising. (b) is a serious problem and deserves consideration without respect to the specific industry.