5 ms·

You're right of course, in explaining how there are opposing interests. That said, do you think that these granted monopolies have turned out to be a flawed mo

You're right of course, in explaining how there are opposing interests. That said, do you think that these granted monopolies have turned out to be a flawed model, that Uber is proof that innovation has been stifled, and now it's just entrenched money holding back progress?

tptacek 13y ago
I think that Uber is an improvement for relatively well-off people, a direct no-op for poorer people, and a potential indirect harm to poorer people if Uber harms taxicab service by competing unfairly. I have no problem at all with Uber's black car service, but I think the taxi service is sketchy.
- andrewljohnson 13y ago
  Wait, poor people take cabs? Isn't the primary cheap mode of transportation in a large city the bus and train system? That's got to be true for SF and NY at least. Uber is getting pretty cheap too, regardless. Example: my wife just caught a car to SFO from Berkeley for less than $80, and no tip. That's cheaper than a taxi, friendlier, you can call 10 minutes before you need the Uber, and track it to your door. A taxi would need to be reserved well in advance, would show up at an indeterminate time, the driver would be indeterminately sleepy, and you'd have to deal with tipping and credit cards. He might be smoking too, and if any of this happened with Uber, you'd leave a bad review. A few reviews, no more driver. Of course, a person on a budget is going to take BART or a shuttle.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Yes, poor people take cabs.
    - andrewljohnson 13y ago
      Then they are lucky Uber exists. Don't believe in your purported indirect harm, do believe in downward price pressure, and upward quality pressure.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        Well, the legislatures of many cities don't agree with you.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Wait, poor people take cabs? Isn't the primary cheap mode of transportation in a large city the bus and train system? Buses and trains, in many cities, don't go everywhere, and don't always run when you need to go, so, yes, poor people take cabs.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    A poor person sometimes needs to go someplace very specific on short notice. Of course, in some cities the cabs don't go the places they are technically "required" to go -- they give a very long estimate of arrival as a way of getting you to go away. Or don't show up at all. I suspect this varies a lot by geographical location.
  - rdouble 13y ago
    I've never had a problem calling a cab to get to SFO, which I've done over 20 times. Calling a cab to get to the airport is probably the least painful cab usage scenario in SF. Uber doesn't do much to improve upon that situation, but does make it about 20 dollars more expensive. The worst cab situation in SF is trying to find a cab at night, which Uber has greatly improved upon.
baddox 13y ago
I would argue that all granted monopolies are flawed models. Either they require the use of force to prevent illicit competitors (who are making consensual business transactions with customers), or they serve the demands of the market well enough that there are no illicit competitors (in which case the granted monopoly is by definition unnecessary).
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > I would argue that all granted monopolies are flawed models. Sure, granted monopolies are (at best) a blunt instrument for internalizing externalities; the questions aren't whether they are imperfect (they are), the question is whether more finely-tuned mechanisms of internalizing the externalities have their own costs which outweigh the benefits. (Also, of course, whether the externalities are accurately assessed.) > Either they require the use of force to prevent illicit competitors (who are making consensual business transactions with customers) You seem to suggest that consensual business transactions are always desirable, which (even making the usual assumptions that make this true when considering only the effects on the direct participants) only is sensible if you completely discount the possibility of externalities.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > You seem to suggest that consensual business transactions are always desirable, which (even making the usual assumptions that make this true when considering only the effects on the direct participants) only is sensible if you completely discount the possibility of externalities. Not at all. I recognize the existence and inevitability of market failures. I just think that regulations will lead to more market failures ("government failures") and will (on average) decrease economic efficiency.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > (who are making consensual business transactions with customers) ...using public property (public roads, public rights of way for water lines or telephone lines, etc). A city excluding illicit competitors from using its roads "requires the use of force" no more than vindicating the right of a property owner to exclude others requires the use of force as a general matter.

tptacek 13y ago

I think that Uber is an improvement for relatively well-off people, a direct no-op for poorer people, and a potential indirect harm to poorer people if Uber harms taxicab service by competing unfairly. I have no problem at all with Uber's black car service, but I think the taxi service is sketchy.

andrewljohnson 13y ago
Wait, poor people take cabs? Isn't the primary cheap mode of transportation in a large city the bus and train system? That's got to be true for SF and NY at least. Uber is getting pretty cheap too, regardless. Example: my wife just caught a car to SFO from Berkeley for less than $80, and no tip. That's cheaper than a taxi, friendlier, you can call 10 minutes before you need the Uber, and track it to your door. A taxi would need to be reserved well in advance, would show up at an indeterminate time, the driver would be indeterminately sleepy, and you'd have to deal with tipping and credit cards. He might be smoking too, and if any of this happened with Uber, you'd leave a bad review. A few reviews, no more driver. Of course, a person on a budget is going to take BART or a shuttle.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Yes, poor people take cabs.
  - andrewljohnson 13y ago
    Then they are lucky Uber exists. Don't believe in your purported indirect harm, do believe in downward price pressure, and upward quality pressure.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Well, the legislatures of many cities don't agree with you.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Wait, poor people take cabs? Isn't the primary cheap mode of transportation in a large city the bus and train system? Buses and trains, in many cities, don't go everywhere, and don't always run when you need to go, so, yes, poor people take cabs.
- danielweber 13y ago
  A poor person sometimes needs to go someplace very specific on short notice. Of course, in some cities the cabs don't go the places they are technically "required" to go -- they give a very long estimate of arrival as a way of getting you to go away. Or don't show up at all. I suspect this varies a lot by geographical location.
- rdouble 13y ago
  I've never had a problem calling a cab to get to SFO, which I've done over 20 times. Calling a cab to get to the airport is probably the least painful cab usage scenario in SF. Uber doesn't do much to improve upon that situation, but does make it about 20 dollars more expensive. The worst cab situation in SF is trying to find a cab at night, which Uber has greatly improved upon.

baddox 13y ago

I would argue that all granted monopolies are flawed models. Either they require the use of force to prevent illicit competitors (who are making consensual business transactions with customers), or they serve the demands of the market well enough that there are no illicit competitors (in which case the granted monopoly is by definition unnecessary).

dragonwriter 13y ago
> I would argue that all granted monopolies are flawed models. Sure, granted monopolies are (at best) a blunt instrument for internalizing externalities; the questions aren't whether they are imperfect (they are), the question is whether more finely-tuned mechanisms of internalizing the externalities have their own costs which outweigh the benefits. (Also, of course, whether the externalities are accurately assessed.) > Either they require the use of force to prevent illicit competitors (who are making consensual business transactions with customers) You seem to suggest that consensual business transactions are always desirable, which (even making the usual assumptions that make this true when considering only the effects on the direct participants) only is sensible if you completely discount the possibility of externalities.
- baddox 13y ago
  > You seem to suggest that consensual business transactions are always desirable, which (even making the usual assumptions that make this true when considering only the effects on the direct participants) only is sensible if you completely discount the possibility of externalities. Not at all. I recognize the existence and inevitability of market failures. I just think that regulations will lead to more market failures ("government failures") and will (on average) decrease economic efficiency.
rayiner 13y ago
> (who are making consensual business transactions with customers) ...using public property (public roads, public rights of way for water lines or telephone lines, etc). A city excluding illicit competitors from using its roads "requires the use of force" no more than vindicating the right of a property owner to exclude others requires the use of force as a general matter.