4 ms·

> What’s missed in these discussions is these regulations had a point to them. This varies a lot by area - For example, I'd say the NY medallion regulations ha

> What’s missed in these discussions is these regulations had a point to them. This varies a lot by area - For example, I'd say the NY medallion regulations had a point to them, and that point was to systematically abuse cab drivers for the profit of the local government and banks. Then for example - in my area (Atlanta) medallion supply was capped at 1600 - the result meant cabs basically didn't exist outside of the airport. Need a ride home from a party? Called a cab company? They won't show up. At all. They will dispatch cab after cab after cab that simply will never EVER show up. Cabs would show up to exactly two places - Nice hotels that paid them under the table to make sure they kept coming, and the airport. Conveniently those two places tended to make circular trips. So are there negative externalities to ride-sharing? Sure. Is it currently better than the previous cab monopolies? I'd argue yes. Do Uber and Lyft really represent a sustainable model? I don't think so.

bsder 5y ago
> This varies a lot by area - For example, I'd say the NY medallion regulations had a point to them, and that point was to systematically abuse cab drivers for the profit of the local government and banks. NY cab medallion regulations were rooted in the aftermath of the Great Depression where it was a race to the bottom and little things like "car maintenance" were viewed as a burden. Funnily enough, Uber and Lyft are in this race to the bottom right now. Hopefully we can stop it before they start kidnapping people. History doesn't repeat, but it sure rhymes
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  Sure - Regulations need to be a balancing act, though. Without any - Folks will cut every corner they can to save money, which leads to lots of negative externalities. With too many - there's no reason to offer a compelling product, because the regulations define such a static status quo. Both of those are bad. You need a healthy mix.
wolverine876 5y ago
NY medallion regulations auction off street space to the highest bidder, rather than allowing a tragedy of the commons: giving that limited public resource away to businesses who profit on it and consume it to the point where others are restricted from using it.

bsder 5y ago

> This varies a lot by area - For example, I'd say the NY medallion regulations had a point to them, and that point was to systematically abuse cab drivers for the profit of the local government and banks. NY cab medallion regulations were rooted in the aftermath of the Great Depression where it was a race to the bottom and little things like "car maintenance" were viewed as a burden. Funnily enough, Uber and Lyft are in this race to the bottom right now. Hopefully we can stop it before they start kidnapping people. History doesn't repeat, but it sure rhymes

horsawlarway 5y ago
Sure - Regulations need to be a balancing act, though. Without any - Folks will cut every corner they can to save money, which leads to lots of negative externalities. With too many - there's no reason to offer a compelling product, because the regulations define such a static status quo. Both of those are bad. You need a healthy mix.

wolverine876 5y ago

NY medallion regulations auction off street space to the highest bidder, rather than allowing a tragedy of the commons: giving that limited public resource away to businesses who profit on it and consume it to the point where others are restricted from using it.