4 ms·

Uber, AirBNB and Food Trucks are interesting for two reasons: 1) They are on a collision course with the regulatory state. 2) Their employees are, by and larg

by uuilly 14y ago

Uber, AirBNB and Food Trucks are interesting for two reasons: 1) They are on a collision course with the regulatory state. 2) Their employees are, by and large, young liberals. Cab medallions are not much different in concept than wind and solar subsidies. In both cases, the government is picking a winner. Our types of companies have been happily immune from the meddling of the regulatory state. As we crawl out into the real world we are dog-fooding the polices we voted for. Hopefully we will realize how bad they taste.

Ralith 14y ago
Damn liberals, screwing everything up for the rest of us!
BadLogInMyAss 14y ago
"Dog-fooding"? Come on. Don't try to verb a noun. We have legitimate words for whatever that was supposed to mean.
andylei 14y ago
> wind and solar subsidies > the government is picking a winner. Sometimes picking a winner is a good thing. Burning coal and oil pollutes air and exacerbates global warming. These are bad things. As a society, we should pay a little extra to avoid them. Wind and solar subsidies are probably less efficient than, say, a carbon tax, but probably better than nothing.
- driverdan 14y ago
  Except it stifles innovation in other sectors. There may be alternatives that are better but aren't subsidized which makes it harder for them to succeed.
  - andylei 14y ago
    > Except it stifles innovation in other sectors this is intentional. the point is we want wind and solar to succeed because they have lower negative externalities. the competing sectors we want to not succeed are things like oil and coal. its a pretty reasonable assumption to make that even with innovations that increase the pollution efficiency of coal and oil, its still not going to be as good as solar and wind. of course, you might also be referring to alternative sectors like hydroelectric or nuclear or whatever. in that case, i agree with you. that's why a carbon tax is better than subsidies.
drone 14y ago
Interesting point. I looked back at the world where no such regulations existed, and I didn't see a perfect market which quickly and efficiently eradicated charlatans and thieves. No, instead I saw a world where people were constantly being preyed upon by the guiled class. I saw a world where the only people you could really trust were those in your close personal circle, and every transaction with a 3rd party, new or known, was rife with risk. The "regulatory state" didn't come about as a predicted social experiment, it came about by constantly reacting to an endless stream of malfeasance that constantly stood to wreck any possibility of a functioning free market. Cities and states regulating measurements and fare mechanisms are generally a -good- thing, even when it affects some darling company. For every darling company that wants us to "just trust them to do the right thing, they're good Silicon Valley-types," there are a dozen would-be scamsters plotting how they can take advantage of similar models to make free money. The constant "free market response" is "Oh, well, people will just shop somewhere else." Yes, after having lost their money (some times many, many people losing their money) AND their trust in any company like the same. The world of figuring cab fares doesn't exactly need to be "turned on its head," it's a well-established practice of livery that's been going back for hundreds of years (perhaps more - I don't know the complete history). Yes, new technology can make it more efficient, but how inefficient is the current system exactly? Is it worth the risk? This is what local communities ask themselves. Why should one company be granted the permissions to step outside of the decision process and state they don't want to follow the community rules? Every action by a government, and most especially inaction (failure to regulate) picks winners and losers. Failing to regulate pollution levels, cab fares, food safety, etc. make winners out of moderately unscrupulous types and moderately scrupulous types. Certain forms of regulations can make winners out of either the highly scrupulous, or the highly unscrupulous. Nothing tastes bad to me about not letting cabs just use their iphones to automatically calculate fares from unmonitored and unvetted software. It makes it harder for Uber to make money? Well crap, cry me a river, it's better than making it easier on the thieves - society has chosen that path over millennia.
- uuilly 14y ago
  So on one hand, the world is rife with thieves and scoundrels and the state is the only thing standing between what we have now and Mad Max. On the other hand you're willing to entrust people working for the state with with powers undreamed of by the thieves and scoundrels. But what happens if thieves and scoundrels hold positions within the state? Restaurant owners pay them to make laws against Food Trucks. Cab drivers pay them to make laws against Uber. Hotel owners pay them to make laws against AirBnB. In the wrong hands, the regulatory state becomes a weapon. That is what is happening now.
_delirium 14y ago
As I understand it, food trucks are mainly running into trouble where they do business while parked on streets. It does seem reasonable to me that the public regulates whether you can park a big honking truck on the street and operate a retail business there. For example, Atlanta bans food trucks on public streets, but they operate out of private parking lots when the landowner has given them permission to do so (they often make the rounds of corporate offices). There's even a privately-operated "food truck park" where a number of them gather: http://atlantafoodtruckpark.com/ http://atlantafoodtruckpark.com/
- endersshadow 14y ago
  Bringing it closer to the story, Boston limits food trucks, as well. They can only be in certain spots in the city, and space is limited. This causes a lot of kvetching by food truckies and their fans. Of course, traffic in Boston is absolutely insane, and I'm not wont to support food trucks anywhere and everywhere in the city. So, Boston is right in the cross-hairs of the, "Why can't you understand innovation?" crowd. There's a lot of really good reasons why you can't let food trucks roam free and do business wherever in Boston. There's also a lot of really good reasons the Department of Weights and Measures exists. Sadly, I don't think those reasons will be considered by fans of these services. That being said, I'm a huge fan of Uber Boston and I would like to see them be able to continue operating. If they would discuss with the city of Boston (or the Commonwealth) how they could become compliant with the law (or can agree that they are, in fact, compliant with the law), even if it means regular government audits, then that would be fantastic. I worry that Uber will take the child's approach and shove their fingers in their ears and yell, "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Hopefully they'll understand that they need to work with regulators, and that they actually do so.

by uuilly 14y ago

Ralith 14y ago

Damn liberals, screwing everything up for the rest of us!

BadLogInMyAss 14y ago

"Dog-fooding"? Come on. Don't try to verb a noun. We have legitimate words for whatever that was supposed to mean.

andylei 14y ago

> wind and solar subsidies > the government is picking a winner. Sometimes picking a winner is a good thing. Burning coal and oil pollutes air and exacerbates global warming. These are bad things. As a society, we should pay a little extra to avoid them. Wind and solar subsidies are probably less efficient than, say, a carbon tax, but probably better than nothing.

driverdan 14y ago
Except it stifles innovation in other sectors. There may be alternatives that are better but aren't subsidized which makes it harder for them to succeed.
- andylei 14y ago
  > Except it stifles innovation in other sectors this is intentional. the point is we want wind and solar to succeed because they have lower negative externalities. the competing sectors we want to not succeed are things like oil and coal. its a pretty reasonable assumption to make that even with innovations that increase the pollution efficiency of coal and oil, its still not going to be as good as solar and wind. of course, you might also be referring to alternative sectors like hydroelectric or nuclear or whatever. in that case, i agree with you. that's why a carbon tax is better than subsidies.

drone 14y ago

Interesting point. I looked back at the world where no such regulations existed, and I didn't see a perfect market which quickly and efficiently eradicated charlatans and thieves. No, instead I saw a world where people were constantly being preyed upon by the guiled class. I saw a world where the only people you could really trust were those in your close personal circle, and every transaction with a 3rd party, new or known, was rife with risk. The "regulatory state" didn't come about as a predicted social experiment, it came about by constantly reacting to an endless stream of malfeasance that constantly stood to wreck any possibility of a functioning free market. Cities and states regulating measurements and fare mechanisms are generally a -good- thing, even when it affects some darling company. For every darling company that wants us to "just trust them to do the right thing, they're good Silicon Valley-types," there are a dozen would-be scamsters plotting how they can take advantage of similar models to make free money. The constant "free market response" is "Oh, well, people will just shop somewhere else." Yes, after having lost their money (some times many, many people losing their money) AND their trust in any company like the same. The world of figuring cab fares doesn't exactly need to be "turned on its head," it's a well-established practice of livery that's been going back for hundreds of years (perhaps more - I don't know the complete history). Yes, new technology can make it more efficient, but how inefficient is the current system exactly? Is it worth the risk? This is what local communities ask themselves. Why should one company be granted the permissions to step outside of the decision process and state they don't want to follow the community rules? Every action by a government, and most especially inaction (failure to regulate) picks winners and losers. Failing to regulate pollution levels, cab fares, food safety, etc. make winners out of moderately unscrupulous types and moderately scrupulous types. Certain forms of regulations can make winners out of either the highly scrupulous, or the highly unscrupulous. Nothing tastes bad to me about not letting cabs just use their iphones to automatically calculate fares from unmonitored and unvetted software. It makes it harder for Uber to make money? Well crap, cry me a river, it's better than making it easier on the thieves - society has chosen that path over millennia.

uuilly 14y ago
So on one hand, the world is rife with thieves and scoundrels and the state is the only thing standing between what we have now and Mad Max. On the other hand you're willing to entrust people working for the state with with powers undreamed of by the thieves and scoundrels. But what happens if thieves and scoundrels hold positions within the state? Restaurant owners pay them to make laws against Food Trucks. Cab drivers pay them to make laws against Uber. Hotel owners pay them to make laws against AirBnB. In the wrong hands, the regulatory state becomes a weapon. That is what is happening now.

_delirium 14y ago

As I understand it, food trucks are mainly running into trouble where they do business while parked on streets. It does seem reasonable to me that the public regulates whether you can park a big honking truck on the street and operate a retail business there. For example, Atlanta bans food trucks on public streets, but they operate out of private parking lots when the landowner has given them permission to do so (they often make the rounds of corporate offices). There's even a privately-operated "food truck park" where a number of them gather: http://atlantafoodtruckpark.com/ http://atlantafoodtruckpark.com/

endersshadow 14y ago
Bringing it closer to the story, Boston limits food trucks, as well. They can only be in certain spots in the city, and space is limited. This causes a lot of kvetching by food truckies and their fans. Of course, traffic in Boston is absolutely insane, and I'm not wont to support food trucks anywhere and everywhere in the city. So, Boston is right in the cross-hairs of the, "Why can't you understand innovation?" crowd. There's a lot of really good reasons why you can't let food trucks roam free and do business wherever in Boston. There's also a lot of really good reasons the Department of Weights and Measures exists. Sadly, I don't think those reasons will be considered by fans of these services. That being said, I'm a huge fan of Uber Boston and I would like to see them be able to continue operating. If they would discuss with the city of Boston (or the Commonwealth) how they could become compliant with the law (or can agree that they are, in fact, compliant with the law), even if it means regular government audits, then that would be fantastic. I worry that Uber will take the child's approach and shove their fingers in their ears and yell, "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" Hopefully they'll understand that they need to work with regulators, and that they actually do so.