3 ms·

Can you tell me why you think PG is off the mark ? Tesla is a company marketing a product that people want. If people want Tesla their elected representatives s

by pjg 13y ago

Can you tell me why you think PG is off the mark ? Tesla is a company marketing a product that people want. If people want Tesla their elected representatives should not and cannot stop them from exercising their choice. Passing laws to prohibit people from buying something available in the market is an index of corporate interests using money to buy favors from elected representatives i.e. an index of corruption. Do you have any claim to support your argument other than a blanket statement "PG is off the mark here" ?

batoure 13y ago
The poster is speaking to pg being off the mark about uber because uber has been ignoring and flouting existing laws. Where as Tesla is victim of a new interpretation of the law.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bsder 13y ago
Because the rules for cab companies actually serve a purpose--they actually ensure that there is some minimum level of service that the consumer can count on in terms of service, fares, non-discrimination, insurance liability, etc. If services like Uber and Lyft simply decided to be a cab company with excellent technological underpinnings, people would have been quite happy with them and they would have been quite profitable. And they could have blown most cab companies out of the water. Buying up inefficient operators, consolidating them, and bringing them into the modern world of technology is a really good business plan. Uber and Lyft are in trouble because they wanted to be exit strategy profitable rather than simply profitable. And they decided to do this by ignoring all of that icky stuff like liability insurance, commercial licensing, and following the law. In addition, Uber and Lyft tend to want to ply their trade in areas which are already profitable to cab companies rather than taking over areas that are underserved. If they were brokering rides in areas that can't get cabs easily, they would have lots of defenders. There is a big difference between laws that actually protect consumers vs. laws that protect middlemen. The fact that pg can't see the difference is a pretty big issue.

by pjg 13y ago

batoure 13y ago

The poster is speaking to pg being off the mark about uber because uber has been ignoring and flouting existing laws. Where as Tesla is victim of a new interpretation of the law.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bsder 13y ago

Because the rules for cab companies actually serve a purpose--they actually ensure that there is some minimum level of service that the consumer can count on in terms of service, fares, non-discrimination, insurance liability, etc. If services like Uber and Lyft simply decided to be a cab company with excellent technological underpinnings, people would have been quite happy with them and they would have been quite profitable. And they could have blown most cab companies out of the water. Buying up inefficient operators, consolidating them, and bringing them into the modern world of technology is a really good business plan. Uber and Lyft are in trouble because they wanted to be exit strategy profitable rather than simply profitable. And they decided to do this by ignoring all of that icky stuff like liability insurance, commercial licensing, and following the law. In addition, Uber and Lyft tend to want to ply their trade in areas which are already profitable to cab companies rather than taking over areas that are underserved. If they were brokering rides in areas that can't get cabs easily, they would have lots of defenders. There is a big difference between laws that actually protect consumers vs. laws that protect middlemen. The fact that pg can't see the difference is a pretty big issue.