10 ms·

But then, contrast this with the Uber CEO's trying to get rich by essentially destroying the livelihoods of a huge amount of people. Ethics does play a part in

But then, contrast this with the Uber CEO's trying to get rich by essentially destroying the livelihoods of a huge amount of people. Ethics does play a part in this, and obviously what he says is true, but it's only true because there are so many greedy people out there that put their own desires over others' needs. Disrupting markets may be sexy, but you always have to think of the consequences. I was discussing the idea with a friend about buying a company in order to grab their customer base, which he thought was a fantastic idea until I pointed out that it utterly fucks over the employees of that company. Sure, if his company was good enough, he'd win eventually, but you can coexist and do things in a way that aren't utterly vicious and unethical. There's a middle way, which is allowing evolution but in an ethical, considerate manner.

fidotron 12y ago
But as she mentions, just wait for driverless cars. Or should they be pre-emptively banned as they'll destroy the livelihoods of millions? This isn't Uber's CEO being evil, it's simply that they found new efficiencies to squeeze out enabled with newer technology.
- antihero 12y ago
  I'm not advocating banning them, please read what I'm actually saying. I'm saying that utterly free markets mean that many people are left behind and suffer, because it takes time to adapt and re-train (and often people are too old to do this). So, we should facilitate evolution in such a way that accommodates human beings. Perhaps if we replaced the cars with driverless people and the farmers with automated farms, these people should not have to work, because the work is done for them? Except in this world, even if every part of our lives was automated, we'd still have to work for pittance (or even compete with the machines), because the machines would be owned by private entities. This is the nature of exploitation - a job is seen as a gift, and the more we automate, the less jobs there are to do, and it becomes a race to the bottom. When things get automated, we don't allow the people who previously did those jobs rest, because everything has to be "earned". Whilst technology is amazing and has led to unparalleled productivity and efficiency, the owners are the ones who have benefited massively disproportionately to humanity as a whole - any positives to everyone else are just a side-effect.
  - fidotron 12y ago
    Free markets are the only way to avoid catastrophic booms and busts. Protectionism leads to giant bubbles which fail all at once, as opposed to more manageable gradual change. Farms are significantly automated, compared to a hundred years ago. And farmers continue to attempt to improve their own efficiency. Cabs are in a sense automated, it's just that the last big group made unemployed by a technological revolution at that point were horses. They just stopped moving forward after that. Nothing prevented the cab drivers coming up with something like Uber themselves. If you prefer existing taxis to Uber then you're currently free to make that choice with your wallet - but that choice is exactly what protectionists want to take away from people. Ultimately protectionism becomes a giant hidden tax in society, and competing societies with less of it in the long term win.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      I have some sympathy for free markets, but your post just sounds trite and somewhat tone deaf. If you want to be convincing, you should respond to the actual problem - what will happen to the taxi drivers - and not just write generic terms like "booms and busts".
      - shiven 12y ago
        what will happen to the taxi drivers They will go the way of the buggy-whip makers[0], as once happened when cars (that these taxi drivers now drive) replaced the horse-drawn carriages. [0]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/buggy+whip http://www.thefreedictionary.com/buggy+whip
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      > Free markets are the only way to avoid catastrophic booms and busts. Protectionism leads to giant bubbles which fail all at once, as opposed to more manageable gradual change. This isn't a mainstream economic viewpoint, and needs acres of citations.
    - keithpeter 12y ago
      Isn't a completely free market likely to collapse onto one or two dominant suppliers who then prevent future competition by restrictive practices? I'd imagine the use of time sensitive tariffs to bankrupt competitors. Sort of like Starbucks saturating a city centre district, bankrupting local independent cafes, then closing down the extra branches.
namesbc 12y ago
Or rather think about all of the new drivers enabled by Lyft, Uber, etc. These new drivers now have a livelihood that wasn't possible under the medallion taxi cartel.
- shiven 12y ago
  Precisely!!! Why does no one talk about the Uber drivers who are now making money and have gainful employment? Everyone seems to imply as if it is only Uber's CEO who is getting rich by taking away the taxi driver's livelihood, as if the CEO drives all the Uber vehicles himself!
- afarrell 12y ago
  Aren't most of these new drivers former taxi drivers?
jiggy2011 12y ago
Once you have their consumer base, you can hire their employees.

fidotron 12y ago

But as she mentions, just wait for driverless cars. Or should they be pre-emptively banned as they'll destroy the livelihoods of millions? This isn't Uber's CEO being evil, it's simply that they found new efficiencies to squeeze out enabled with newer technology.

antihero 12y ago
I'm not advocating banning them, please read what I'm actually saying. I'm saying that utterly free markets mean that many people are left behind and suffer, because it takes time to adapt and re-train (and often people are too old to do this). So, we should facilitate evolution in such a way that accommodates human beings. Perhaps if we replaced the cars with driverless people and the farmers with automated farms, these people should not have to work, because the work is done for them? Except in this world, even if every part of our lives was automated, we'd still have to work for pittance (or even compete with the machines), because the machines would be owned by private entities. This is the nature of exploitation - a job is seen as a gift, and the more we automate, the less jobs there are to do, and it becomes a race to the bottom. When things get automated, we don't allow the people who previously did those jobs rest, because everything has to be "earned". Whilst technology is amazing and has led to unparalleled productivity and efficiency, the owners are the ones who have benefited massively disproportionately to humanity as a whole - any positives to everyone else are just a side-effect.
- fidotron 12y ago
  Free markets are the only way to avoid catastrophic booms and busts. Protectionism leads to giant bubbles which fail all at once, as opposed to more manageable gradual change. Farms are significantly automated, compared to a hundred years ago. And farmers continue to attempt to improve their own efficiency. Cabs are in a sense automated, it's just that the last big group made unemployed by a technological revolution at that point were horses. They just stopped moving forward after that. Nothing prevented the cab drivers coming up with something like Uber themselves. If you prefer existing taxis to Uber then you're currently free to make that choice with your wallet - but that choice is exactly what protectionists want to take away from people. Ultimately protectionism becomes a giant hidden tax in society, and competing societies with less of it in the long term win.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I have some sympathy for free markets, but your post just sounds trite and somewhat tone deaf. If you want to be convincing, you should respond to the actual problem - what will happen to the taxi drivers - and not just write generic terms like "booms and busts".
    - shiven 12y ago
      what will happen to the taxi drivers They will go the way of the buggy-whip makers[0], as once happened when cars (that these taxi drivers now drive) replaced the horse-drawn carriages. [0]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/buggy+whip http://www.thefreedictionary.com/buggy+whip
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    > Free markets are the only way to avoid catastrophic booms and busts. Protectionism leads to giant bubbles which fail all at once, as opposed to more manageable gradual change. This isn't a mainstream economic viewpoint, and needs acres of citations.
  - keithpeter 12y ago
    Isn't a completely free market likely to collapse onto one or two dominant suppliers who then prevent future competition by restrictive practices? I'd imagine the use of time sensitive tariffs to bankrupt competitors. Sort of like Starbucks saturating a city centre district, bankrupting local independent cafes, then closing down the extra branches.

namesbc 12y ago

Or rather think about all of the new drivers enabled by Lyft, Uber, etc. These new drivers now have a livelihood that wasn't possible under the medallion taxi cartel.

shiven 12y ago
Precisely!!! Why does no one talk about the Uber drivers who are now making money and have gainful employment? Everyone seems to imply as if it is only Uber's CEO who is getting rich by taking away the taxi driver's livelihood, as if the CEO drives all the Uber vehicles himself!
afarrell 12y ago
Aren't most of these new drivers former taxi drivers?

jiggy2011 12y ago

Once you have their consumer base, you can hire their employees.