2 ms·
But if they're going for regulation, they're going about it entirely backwards. You don't start with a regulated service and deny others entry. You begin with a
by unalone 18y ago
But if they're going for regulation, they're going about it entirely backwards. You don't start with a regulated service and deny others entry. You begin with an open market, allowing sites like these, and then other people create a niche business of offering reliability through the same venues.
Right? What am I missing?
- tptacek 18y agoThat the phenomenon you're talking about happened like 70 years ago.
- unalone 18y agoAha! Color me ignorant, then, that makes sense.
- tptacek 18y ago:)
- mseebach 18y agoWhat? There was a thriving free market and suddenly the public taxi-regulation-and-rationing scheme out-competed everyone else?
- tptacek 18y agoNo, there was a thriving free market and the public taxi regulation scheme shifted the negative externalities that it was empirically observed to generate back onto the cab companies. Regulated businesses don't "outcompete" unregulated businesses. That's why they're called "regulations" and not "features". You can argue that regulation is stupid, but: * We won't settle the argument, because every point you make about competition I'll respond to with a negative externality, like, "anonymous unmarked drivers killing people by running red lights". * You won't be refuting my original argument, which is that states are not crazy for getting upset by PickupPal.