4 ms·
This isn't necessarily the case though. I am in no way going to argue that the "tragedy of the commons" is a real phenomenon. But their is a natural counterbala
by mudetroit 12y ago
This isn't necessarily the case though. I am in no way going to argue that the "tragedy of the commons" is a real phenomenon. But their is a natural counterbalance to the streets filling up with taxis.
People operate taxis to make money. If the number of taxis becomes such that the roads fill with taxis, then the number or taxis should lower itself for two reasons. A.) If the taxis can't get anywhere either then people won't pay for them. B.) The ability of any single taxi to turn a positive profit will approach 0.
- tfinniga 12y agoSo I'm a bit confused by your phrasing. Are you saying that the tragedy of the commons isn't something that actually happens? I agree with your point that there are natural pressures that would keep the number of taxis down if the artificial limitation was removed. It's just that I don't think that the natural equilibrium point financially is going to be the optimal level in terms of getting people where they want to go efficiently. In my mind, the entire transportation system is useful to provide a service to individuals and other sectors of the economy, and if it's not doing that well it doesn't matter much if the people working in transportation are at a natural equilibrium. I'm also not saying that the medallion system is the right way to handle the situation. A taxi or car on the road uses up some common, limited resource (space on the road). Maybe you'd have more luck charging for that resource more directly, like a congestion charge?