8 ms·

to summarize: regulatory capture is an existential threat to the American economy, and any regulation that restricts a silicon valley firm is prima facie regula

by hapless 13y ago

to summarize: regulatory capture is an existential threat to the American economy, and any regulation that restricts a silicon valley firm is prima facie regulatory capture. I, too, am alarmed by the changes in campaign funding we have seen in the last 20 years. The author applies his alarm narrowly to problems in his private equity portfolio. I do not share his alarm on that particular topic. By and large, I prefer to live in a world with taxi and hotel regulation, even if it impairs the ability of some bay area millionaires to add to their fortunes. Not all regulation is a sign of regulatory capture. Not all lobbying is intrinsically bad. Not every improvement in efficiency improves outcomes for society.

WildUtah 13y ago
I prefer to live in a world with taxi and hotel regulation Please enjoy them, then. The rest of us whose judgment is sufficient to choose our own taxis would appreciate if you kept the cops out of our private choices.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- yarrel 13y ago
  Express kidnappers agree with you.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - ivanca 13y ago
    Of course, without a clause any taxi driver is free to kidnap and murder you! These silly liberals don't think things trough. /s
  - Fuxy 13y ago
    So as long I'm a taxi driver I can kidnap you? Or do you actually believe that all these regulations are going to prevent somebody from kidnapping people? I sincerely doubt that.
- alayne 13y ago
  Sure, just make sure the taxis only drive on your private road.
- marcusf 13y ago
  Stockholm, Sweden, has a fairly unregulated taxi market in that pricing is set independently. This causes massive issues, specifically for tourists who have no idea what to pick. They end up paying $500 USD to go from the airport to town, a ride that is usually closer to $60-70 USD. I guess what I'm saying is judgement is contextual.
  - Fuxy 13y ago
    That's why old regulations were good in old times but now that app can help you choose the best taxi at the best price this is not necessary. Technology changes, people change so regulations must change with it. We should version control all laws and regulations and we should debug them when we see people taking advantage of them in unexpected ways.
    - mattlutze 13y ago
      *can help you choose the best taxi [registered through that app] at the best price [available through the app]. Do not forget that Uber, TaxiMagic, etc. are still closed and managed environments -- they are simply more opaque, as a corporation is choosing the makeup of that market instead of a government entity. Laws are already version controlled and debugged when necessary, where does that come from? Laws are amended and repealed all the time, in every level of legislation.
      - Fuxy 13y ago
        You can have multiple apps on your phone however i know very few people who would ask every taxi parked there how much they charge. Plus the first one is a market place the second is just one taxi. Hell I wouldn't mind if a government entity launched an app that did the same thing.
- gutnor 13y ago
  You judgement is sufficient because you live in a world where taxi are regulated and as such any legitimate unregulated competition will strive to provide you the same guarantee you get with the regulated ones. Now I'm not saying that the current regulation shouldn't get refreshed to consider what is currently available. But I'm amazed how people are just all or nothing about regulation. You should want enough regulation so that a basic level of service is guaranteed. If that is not the case, it becomes too hard for customer to efficiently compare services. Like in this case, you should be able to compare taxi companies in less than a few minutes. If you need more than that, then chance are that you will stick with the reliable provider you know. Good competition happens when consumers are willing to try alternative.
- brianmcc 13y ago
  Don't assume you represent "the rest of us". You don't. Your choice is valid, but it's not mine, and that will be true for many others.
  - crusso 13y ago
    The irony with your statement is that your position is to make the choice for everyone in the market in a one-size-fits-all fashion. His choice is to allow variety, competition, and customization so that more people get a chance to find the service that satisfies their needs. I don't think anyone is saying to completely do away with all regulation in every instance - but have you seen the competitive barrier taxi regulation in most metro areas? It's specifically designed to prevent competition from those without massive resources. It's the stereotypical big guy keeping the little guy down with their million dollar medallions and special connections to lawmakers.
    - brianmcc 13y ago
      Upvoted for a fair point. Regulation must work effectively for it to deserve support going forward, and I am 100% with you when it comes to opposition to excessive or prevents-fair-competition type regulation in this kind of space. I'd probably prefer improved regulation than zero regulation though: regulate what matters, but otherwise step aside. Taxi and hotel regulation IMO comes with a safety aspect which should, for example, protect lone or vulnerable travellers from harm (to a limited extent, of course, but some is better than none). Personally, I will accept a bit of restriction to my options in return for widely vetted service provision.
- pizza234 13y ago
  Well, dividing the world in them and us is certainly not a very good beginning of a conversation :-| But aside, the problem is not in the individual problem theirselves. The problem is that an excessive deregulation is a part of a large process of demolition of the human rights of the great majority of the population. Paradoxically, such huge problem is difficult to notice, because it requires vision. In a world where there would be an excess of human rights and slow economy, deregulation would be fine. In such world, I would agree to liberalize the taxing and housing. We're on the opposite side, though. So keeping deregulating is going to make the disaster we're already in even worse.
- AutoCorrect 13y ago
  Let's take a look at that: Quick, tell me which ISP provides fiber to the home with unlimited bandwidth? Only 1, so far, and only in limited areas. If it was ONLY our judgement that determined the quality, then I would be all for it. Unfortunately, there's sometimes a race to the bottom. Regulations help, to a certain extent, to control that. I know I wouldn't want open heart surgery provided by the lowest bidder.
NoPiece 13y ago
You don't need to care about the millionaires in silicon valley, but you should care about the poor unemployed guy who is denied the right to earn a living by driving people around in his car.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  What about the guy driving the car and the family of the girl who were killed accidentally by an Uber driver, and Uber trying to skate responsibility? Regulations aren't in place contrary to popular opinion here just to make rich people richer...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - atom-morgan 13y ago
    Accidents happen. How would this be any different if a taxi driver killed them and tried to skate responsibility?
    - 3am 13y ago
      It's a great question. As a contractor, is the Uber driver forced to carry his own liability insurance? How much? Is Uber liable, too? What is the answer to those same questions for a regulated taxi or limousine service? I don't have time to look up the answers because of work, but I'm genuinely curious if anyone knows. It seems like these are reasonable questions to ask, and could lead to a constructive conversation about the role and necessity of regulation.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Isn't that why we have judges? To evaluate who is responsible when a crime happens? Why exactly is industry regulation required for that?
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      If the driver worked for Yellow Cab or some other official service and had proper insurance, liability coverage, indemnity protection he wouldn't be liable for $100k in damages or whatever it may be, or other bills which could arise from this due to that dreaded regulation word. Many things that keep you safe every day are due to regulation, not hindered by it.
ahomescu1 13y ago
> By and large, I prefer to live in a world with taxi and hotel regulation I can see why you'd want licensing for taxi drivers (to help against customers getting ripped off or mugged), but what's the point of limiting the number of taxis (which is really one of the main points against taxi regulation)? I'm not sure it restricts the number of cars in the streets, if people who would otherwise take a cheap taxi now have to own a car instead. My point is there is such a thing as too much regulation.
- glesica 13y ago
  > My point is there is such a thing as too much regulation. Or just poorly constructed regulation. I agree with you. I want taxi regulations, because I've got enough historical and international perspective to know what will happen without them and to know that they are, at worst, the lesser of two evils. However, I absolutely want smart regulation that gets out of the way where it isn't helping anyone and ensures that the services people want can be delivered. That being said, I would prefer better public transit than more taxis, but that's just another side of the same many-sided die.
- bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  In some places we have this thing called public transport. In some very odd places we even use bicycles. Taxis, like all other cars, clog up the roads with their inefficient size to passengers ratio, and pollute the air. Limiting the number of taxis can be a matter of maintaining a half way liveable city. If there were plenty of cheap taxis in my town (Amsterdam) I would use them a lot, because I'm a big fat lazy motherfucker. Unfortunately, there are too many people like me, and our selfishness would be detrimental to the society around us. (I'm typing this as it's pouring outside and I have to get to the office. I would love a cheap taxi right about now, but the world doesn't revolve around me.)
  - icedog 13y ago
    Regulation isn't an appropriate response. If taxi's are cheap to operate (hence ample supply but artificially limited) then personal vehicles are cheap as well. "Big fat lazy motherfuckers" will just buy their own vehicle and make an even larger mess. Pardon my idealistic views, but it would be better to curb demand for taxis with: a. cheaper, more consistently on-time public transportation b. safer bike routes c. casual carpool programs The real question is why you rather take a taxi than your local public transportation.
atom-morgan 13y ago
By and large, I prefer to live in a world with taxi and hotel regulation Why, exactly?
- gaius 13y ago
  Well, for a start, if you buy or rent an apartment in a nice quiet building, you didn't sign up for one of your neighbours deciding to run a hotel with strangers coming and going at all hours. Regulation prevents people getting profits by externalizing their costs onto others without their consent.
  - atom-morgan 13y ago
    So the amount of foot traffic going in and out of my (quiet) apartment is the issue? I hope I'm not exceeding this limit already by myself especially since none of my neighbors know who I am. As for having my friends over, this is an issue as well?
    - gaius 13y ago
      "having your friends over" eh? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/airbnb-orgy_n_4978830.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/airbnb-orgy_n_49788...
      - atom-morgan 13y ago
        Yes, having my friends over. We talk, drink, play video games, code, etc. This one scenario necessitates regulation to punish all other people who use or would potentially use Airbnb/Lyft/Uber in a responsible and professional manner?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - head_stomp 13y ago
    Why is this person renting or buying an apartment in a building whose management allows their residents to rent their apartments out like hotel rooms? Why can't this function through contracts with disputes being adjudicated through a court system rather than through comparatively blunt statutory regulation? For example, replace "run a hotel with strangers coming and going at all hours" with 'smoke cigarettes' or 'own a pet.'

by hapless 13y ago

WildUtah 13y ago

I prefer to live in a world with taxi and hotel regulation Please enjoy them, then. The rest of us whose judgment is sufficient to choose our own taxis would appreciate if you kept the cops out of our private choices.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
yarrel 13y ago
Express kidnappers agree with you.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ivanca 13y ago
  Of course, without a clause any taxi driver is free to kidnap and murder you! These silly liberals don't think things trough. /s
- Fuxy 13y ago
  So as long I'm a taxi driver I can kidnap you? Or do you actually believe that all these regulations are going to prevent somebody from kidnapping people? I sincerely doubt that.
alayne 13y ago
Sure, just make sure the taxis only drive on your private road.
marcusf 13y ago
Stockholm, Sweden, has a fairly unregulated taxi market in that pricing is set independently. This causes massive issues, specifically for tourists who have no idea what to pick. They end up paying $500 USD to go from the airport to town, a ride that is usually closer to $60-70 USD. I guess what I'm saying is judgement is contextual.
- Fuxy 13y ago
  That's why old regulations were good in old times but now that app can help you choose the best taxi at the best price this is not necessary. Technology changes, people change so regulations must change with it. We should version control all laws and regulations and we should debug them when we see people taking advantage of them in unexpected ways.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    *can help you choose the best taxi [registered through that app] at the best price [available through the app]. Do not forget that Uber, TaxiMagic, etc. are still closed and managed environments -- they are simply more opaque, as a corporation is choosing the makeup of that market instead of a government entity. Laws are already version controlled and debugged when necessary, where does that come from? Laws are amended and repealed all the time, in every level of legislation.
    - Fuxy 13y ago
      You can have multiple apps on your phone however i know very few people who would ask every taxi parked there how much they charge. Plus the first one is a market place the second is just one taxi. Hell I wouldn't mind if a government entity launched an app that did the same thing.
gutnor 13y ago
You judgement is sufficient because you live in a world where taxi are regulated and as such any legitimate unregulated competition will strive to provide you the same guarantee you get with the regulated ones. Now I'm not saying that the current regulation shouldn't get refreshed to consider what is currently available. But I'm amazed how people are just all or nothing about regulation. You should want enough regulation so that a basic level of service is guaranteed. If that is not the case, it becomes too hard for customer to efficiently compare services. Like in this case, you should be able to compare taxi companies in less than a few minutes. If you need more than that, then chance are that you will stick with the reliable provider you know. Good competition happens when consumers are willing to try alternative.
brianmcc 13y ago
Don't assume you represent "the rest of us". You don't. Your choice is valid, but it's not mine, and that will be true for many others.
- crusso 13y ago
  The irony with your statement is that your position is to make the choice for everyone in the market in a one-size-fits-all fashion. His choice is to allow variety, competition, and customization so that more people get a chance to find the service that satisfies their needs. I don't think anyone is saying to completely do away with all regulation in every instance - but have you seen the competitive barrier taxi regulation in most metro areas? It's specifically designed to prevent competition from those without massive resources. It's the stereotypical big guy keeping the little guy down with their million dollar medallions and special connections to lawmakers.
  - brianmcc 13y ago
    Upvoted for a fair point. Regulation must work effectively for it to deserve support going forward, and I am 100% with you when it comes to opposition to excessive or prevents-fair-competition type regulation in this kind of space. I'd probably prefer improved regulation than zero regulation though: regulate what matters, but otherwise step aside. Taxi and hotel regulation IMO comes with a safety aspect which should, for example, protect lone or vulnerable travellers from harm (to a limited extent, of course, but some is better than none). Personally, I will accept a bit of restriction to my options in return for widely vetted service provision.
pizza234 13y ago
Well, dividing the world in them and us is certainly not a very good beginning of a conversation :-| But aside, the problem is not in the individual problem theirselves. The problem is that an excessive deregulation is a part of a large process of demolition of the human rights of the great majority of the population. Paradoxically, such huge problem is difficult to notice, because it requires vision. In a world where there would be an excess of human rights and slow economy, deregulation would be fine. In such world, I would agree to liberalize the taxing and housing. We're on the opposite side, though. So keeping deregulating is going to make the disaster we're already in even worse.
AutoCorrect 13y ago
Let's take a look at that: Quick, tell me which ISP provides fiber to the home with unlimited bandwidth? Only 1, so far, and only in limited areas. If it was ONLY our judgement that determined the quality, then I would be all for it. Unfortunately, there's sometimes a race to the bottom. Regulations help, to a certain extent, to control that. I know I wouldn't want open heart surgery provided by the lowest bidder.

NoPiece 13y ago

You don't need to care about the millionaires in silicon valley, but you should care about the poor unemployed guy who is denied the right to earn a living by driving people around in his car.

res0nat0r 13y ago
What about the guy driving the car and the family of the girl who were killed accidentally by an Uber driver, and Uber trying to skate responsibility? Regulations aren't in place contrary to popular opinion here just to make rich people richer...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- atom-morgan 13y ago
  Accidents happen. How would this be any different if a taxi driver killed them and tried to skate responsibility?
  - 3am 13y ago
    It's a great question. As a contractor, is the Uber driver forced to carry his own liability insurance? How much? Is Uber liable, too? What is the answer to those same questions for a regulated taxi or limousine service? I don't have time to look up the answers because of work, but I'm genuinely curious if anyone knows. It seems like these are reasonable questions to ask, and could lead to a constructive conversation about the role and necessity of regulation.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Isn't that why we have judges? To evaluate who is responsible when a crime happens? Why exactly is industry regulation required for that?
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    If the driver worked for Yellow Cab or some other official service and had proper insurance, liability coverage, indemnity protection he wouldn't be liable for $100k in damages or whatever it may be, or other bills which could arise from this due to that dreaded regulation word. Many things that keep you safe every day are due to regulation, not hindered by it.

ahomescu1 13y ago

> By and large, I prefer to live in a world with taxi and hotel regulation I can see why you'd want licensing for taxi drivers (to help against customers getting ripped off or mugged), but what's the point of limiting the number of taxis (which is really one of the main points against taxi regulation)? I'm not sure it restricts the number of cars in the streets, if people who would otherwise take a cheap taxi now have to own a car instead. My point is there is such a thing as too much regulation.

glesica 13y ago
> My point is there is such a thing as too much regulation. Or just poorly constructed regulation. I agree with you. I want taxi regulations, because I've got enough historical and international perspective to know what will happen without them and to know that they are, at worst, the lesser of two evils. However, I absolutely want smart regulation that gets out of the way where it isn't helping anyone and ensures that the services people want can be delivered. That being said, I would prefer better public transit than more taxis, but that's just another side of the same many-sided die.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
In some places we have this thing called public transport. In some very odd places we even use bicycles. Taxis, like all other cars, clog up the roads with their inefficient size to passengers ratio, and pollute the air. Limiting the number of taxis can be a matter of maintaining a half way liveable city. If there were plenty of cheap taxis in my town (Amsterdam) I would use them a lot, because I'm a big fat lazy motherfucker. Unfortunately, there are too many people like me, and our selfishness would be detrimental to the society around us. (I'm typing this as it's pouring outside and I have to get to the office. I would love a cheap taxi right about now, but the world doesn't revolve around me.)
- icedog 13y ago
  Regulation isn't an appropriate response. If taxi's are cheap to operate (hence ample supply but artificially limited) then personal vehicles are cheap as well. "Big fat lazy motherfuckers" will just buy their own vehicle and make an even larger mess. Pardon my idealistic views, but it would be better to curb demand for taxis with: a. cheaper, more consistently on-time public transportation b. safer bike routes c. casual carpool programs The real question is why you rather take a taxi than your local public transportation.

atom-morgan 13y ago

By and large, I prefer to live in a world with taxi and hotel regulation Why, exactly?

gaius 13y ago
Well, for a start, if you buy or rent an apartment in a nice quiet building, you didn't sign up for one of your neighbours deciding to run a hotel with strangers coming and going at all hours. Regulation prevents people getting profits by externalizing their costs onto others without their consent.
- atom-morgan 13y ago
  So the amount of foot traffic going in and out of my (quiet) apartment is the issue? I hope I'm not exceeding this limit already by myself especially since none of my neighbors know who I am. As for having my friends over, this is an issue as well?
  - gaius 13y ago
    "having your friends over" eh? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/airbnb-orgy_n_4978830.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/airbnb-orgy_n_49788...
    - atom-morgan 13y ago
      Yes, having my friends over. We talk, drink, play video games, code, etc. This one scenario necessitates regulation to punish all other people who use or would potentially use Airbnb/Lyft/Uber in a responsible and professional manner?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- head_stomp 13y ago
  Why is this person renting or buying an apartment in a building whose management allows their residents to rent their apartments out like hotel rooms? Why can't this function through contracts with disputes being adjudicated through a court system rather than through comparatively blunt statutory regulation? For example, replace "run a hotel with strangers coming and going at all hours" with 'smoke cigarettes' or 'own a pet.'