4 ms·

Well, one advantage is having any competition at all. The taxi market has been so badly broken for so long that just being able to introduce new drivers and com

by jaibot 13y ago

Well, one advantage is having any competition at all. The taxi market has been so badly broken for so long that just being able to introduce new drivers and companies results in lower prices and better service all around.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
I agree, but in the context of the comment you're responding to, this is subsumed in evading regulation. You are more or less saying, "Taxi regulations are bad because they reduce competition without corresponding advantages that outweigh the cost, so Uber's wins when it evades those regulations and reintroduces competition." But it's still "evading regulations." Although I'd prefer to think of it as avoiding regulations -- avoidance is legal and evasion is illegal.
- memracom 13y ago
  Actually it is more like privatization of taxi regulations. Instead of paying for a burdensome and ineffective government bureaucracy, a libertarian would let private companies handle it. The tricky part is avoiding monopoly and arguably, monopoly is at the root of the problems with burdensome and ineffective government bureaucracy.
- nickonline 13y ago
  This depends on where you are. A lot of "regulation" appears to me to be monopolistic pricing because there were no other choices. I'm in Australia so the below is my experience. Moving to Uber as I have means I don't have to pay the ridiculous 10% to use a card. Originally the only way to pay card with a taxi was to use the company "cabcharge" who put their terminals in the cabs and the 10% was charged anytime card was used instead of cash. This has nothing to do with regulation and there has been an investigation started around it. Further to this the cab companies are charging $2.50 (flagfall) + ~$3.00 (booking fee) if I book through them online or over the phone. The booking fee doesn't go to the cabbie, just to the company for picking up the phone. Uber charges me $3.50 flat. Once again, not regulation.

by jaibot 13y ago

jamesaguilar 13y ago

I agree, but in the context of the comment you're responding to, this is subsumed in evading regulation. You are more or less saying, "Taxi regulations are bad because they reduce competition without corresponding advantages that outweigh the cost, so Uber's wins when it evades those regulations and reintroduces competition." But it's still "evading regulations." Although I'd prefer to think of it as avoiding regulations -- avoidance is legal and evasion is illegal.

memracom 13y ago
Actually it is more like privatization of taxi regulations. Instead of paying for a burdensome and ineffective government bureaucracy, a libertarian would let private companies handle it. The tricky part is avoiding monopoly and arguably, monopoly is at the root of the problems with burdensome and ineffective government bureaucracy.
nickonline 13y ago
This depends on where you are. A lot of "regulation" appears to me to be monopolistic pricing because there were no other choices. I'm in Australia so the below is my experience. Moving to Uber as I have means I don't have to pay the ridiculous 10% to use a card. Originally the only way to pay card with a taxi was to use the company "cabcharge" who put their terminals in the cabs and the 10% was charged anytime card was used instead of cash. This has nothing to do with regulation and there has been an investigation started around it. Further to this the cab companies are charging $2.50 (flagfall) + ~$3.00 (booking fee) if I book through them online or over the phone. The booking fee doesn't go to the cabbie, just to the company for picking up the phone. Uber charges me $3.50 flat. Once again, not regulation.