3 ms·

It's incredible to see cities that still do this. It means the investment goes into the medallion, the cabs can be crappy and the drivers don't get a fair retur

It's incredible to see cities that still do this. It means the investment goes into the medallion, the cabs can be crappy and the drivers don't get a fair return (the medallion owner does). There are plenty of examples of cities that have abandoned the monopoly approach to supply and price of taxis. One example is every city and town across New Zealand. Here's what it looks like: The entry price for a new cab is low - a decent car that passes muster with regular inspections, a clean sheet for the driver and so on. There are no huge fees. There are a lot more cabs than before deregulation (2 to 3 times). The difference is that even after a major event you can still catch a cab. That in turn means you are less likely to drive, as you know you can get a cab safely, and so those extra cabs get used. There are a large range of cab companies - from unmarked 'limos' to branded Corporate Cabs, large regional players and then a host of cheap and cheerful players. My favorite right now is Green Cabs, which has a 100% hybrid fleet and charges less - as they save 30-70% on gasoline versus the v6 powered monster cars the traditional cab companies have. You can pick the car you want when exiting an airport, and there are no monopoly suppliers at airports, though some pay to have better positions. There is no mandate to take the one in front, and people don't. Prices are set by each company and registered with the government. They cannot change them each day, and they have to apply to all cars. It does mean that some firms are more expensive (nicer cars, better service) and some are cheaper. There are also some that are better for short trips (low flag fall, hugh cost per Km/Mile) and others for longer trips. We have a market based economy for cabbies, and we as consumers and the cabbies (by the numbers) are much better off. How can anyone, especially Wall St, credibly argue for free markets when there are mandated monopolies under their noses? [edited to remove arbitrary attack on right wing]

fennecfoxen 15y ago
How can the right wing argue for free markets when there are mandated monopolies right under their noses? Uhh... The right wing is NOT who's in charge of New York City. NYC as a whole is firmly in the camp of the left wing, democrats, Hilary Clinton and friends. It's not even close.
- fleitz 15y ago
  The right wing can't argue for anything, it doesn't exist. The various people that compose the right (and left, and center) wing say specific things which are often at odds with each other. The organizations and people are generally talking their book rather than preaching a consistent ideology. If you ask the owner of a cab company about Wall St bailouts they are probably against it because "it's not a free market" whereas if you ask them about taxi cab medallions they'll tell you it's about consumer protection and is an appropriate amount of regulation necessary similar to basic health codes for restaurants. People talk their book, end of story. In general, welfare recipients want more welfare, governments want more government, and corporations want more corporations. It's just the evolutionary nature of organizations that propagate themselves. Organizations that are not self-propagating tend to die out once their usefulness has passed. (eg. Why do we still have a March of Dimes?)
- hristov 15y ago
  The mayor of New York City was a republican when first elected and is now an independent. He is a billionaire who has always touted his business expertise as his biggest advantage. So I think the original poster's claim kind of stands if he just replaces "right wing" with Bloomberg. Hillary Clinton used to be a senator for the state of New York and now is the Secretary of State of the US. Neither of these roles have much to do with New York City government.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Bloomberg is attempting to clip the wings of the taxi industry, but he's having a hard time of it. I'm not sure of the details and precisely why the taxi industry has so much power. (Maybe they have carefully compiled dossiers on the late-night trips of every politician in the city...)
    - wisty 15y ago
      It's nothing to do with left vs. right. It's people with vested interests. For most people, getting a taxi is a minor annoyance. They don't know what any candidates' standing on the issue is, and don't even know how the issue effects them. Why would they consider it when they go to the polls? But medallion owners care. If someone says they will end the program, they will vote like crazy against it. They will also tell the drivers (who might actually stand to gain if they could get their own medallions at a lower cost) that margins will drop, cheap competitors will move in, safety standards will drop, and so on. The same is true of sugar imports, patent laws, retrospective copyright extensions, and other issues which have a few people who care about it, and a lot who don't even understand it. OK, you could say that deregulation is what the right (or libertarians) stands for. But sometimes it works the other way - regulations and subsidies can arguably help the broader community while hurting a few special interest groups.
eru 15y ago
> Prices are set by each company and registered with the government. They cannot change them each day, and they have to apply to all cars. It does mean that some firms are more expensive (nicer cars, better service) and some are cheaper. There are also some that are better for short trips (low flag fall, hugh cost per Km/Mile) and others for longer trips. I guess there's an argument to be made for allowing more flexible pricing. Keeping the requirement that prices should be public might be worth it, though.

fennecfoxen 15y ago

How can the right wing argue for free markets when there are mandated monopolies right under their noses? Uhh... The right wing is NOT who's in charge of New York City. NYC as a whole is firmly in the camp of the left wing, democrats, Hilary Clinton and friends. It's not even close.

fleitz 15y ago
The right wing can't argue for anything, it doesn't exist. The various people that compose the right (and left, and center) wing say specific things which are often at odds with each other. The organizations and people are generally talking their book rather than preaching a consistent ideology. If you ask the owner of a cab company about Wall St bailouts they are probably against it because "it's not a free market" whereas if you ask them about taxi cab medallions they'll tell you it's about consumer protection and is an appropriate amount of regulation necessary similar to basic health codes for restaurants. People talk their book, end of story. In general, welfare recipients want more welfare, governments want more government, and corporations want more corporations. It's just the evolutionary nature of organizations that propagate themselves. Organizations that are not self-propagating tend to die out once their usefulness has passed. (eg. Why do we still have a March of Dimes?)
hristov 15y ago
The mayor of New York City was a republican when first elected and is now an independent. He is a billionaire who has always touted his business expertise as his biggest advantage. So I think the original poster's claim kind of stands if he just replaces "right wing" with Bloomberg. Hillary Clinton used to be a senator for the state of New York and now is the Secretary of State of the US. Neither of these roles have much to do with New York City government.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Bloomberg is attempting to clip the wings of the taxi industry, but he's having a hard time of it. I'm not sure of the details and precisely why the taxi industry has so much power. (Maybe they have carefully compiled dossiers on the late-night trips of every politician in the city...)
  - wisty 15y ago
    It's nothing to do with left vs. right. It's people with vested interests. For most people, getting a taxi is a minor annoyance. They don't know what any candidates' standing on the issue is, and don't even know how the issue effects them. Why would they consider it when they go to the polls? But medallion owners care. If someone says they will end the program, they will vote like crazy against it. They will also tell the drivers (who might actually stand to gain if they could get their own medallions at a lower cost) that margins will drop, cheap competitors will move in, safety standards will drop, and so on. The same is true of sugar imports, patent laws, retrospective copyright extensions, and other issues which have a few people who care about it, and a lot who don't even understand it. OK, you could say that deregulation is what the right (or libertarians) stands for. But sometimes it works the other way - regulations and subsidies can arguably help the broader community while hurting a few special interest groups.

eru 15y ago

> Prices are set by each company and registered with the government. They cannot change them each day, and they have to apply to all cars. It does mean that some firms are more expensive (nicer cars, better service) and some are cheaper. There are also some that are better for short trips (low flag fall, hugh cost per Km/Mile) and others for longer trips. I guess there's an argument to be made for allowing more flexible pricing. Keeping the requirement that prices should be public might be worth it, though.