5 ms·

... for being woefully outdated and not inline with market economics Why do regulations have to be in line with market economics in the first place? Most, if

... for being woefully outdated and not inline with market economics Why do regulations have to be in line with market economics in the first place? Most, if not all regulations should serve and protect the citizenship and not private interest. That Uber so vehemently lobbies against sensible regulation, like an obligation for commercial insurance, speaks volumes.

ZachPruckowski 12y ago
>Why do regulations have to be in line with market economics in the first place? Yeah, I think this is something a lot of folks overlook - regulations exist because society has decided its interests are better served by making folks play by a certain set of rules than by hitting peak market efficiency or whatever. Now you can argue that a given regulation is not the best way to achieve a societal goal (for instance that limits on cab numbers don't reduce congestion much) or that they have worse externalities (medallion systems squeezing out the little guy in favor of big companies that can afford 6-figure medallion prices) or that the lost efficiency isn't worth society's goals, but straight up saying that they're "inefficient" isn't a case for anything.
- dlss 12y ago
  > regulations exist because society has decided its interests are better served by making folks play by a certain set of rules than by hitting peak market efficiency or whatever This is technically correct, but is forgetting that society is often wrong about what serves its interests. For some popularly unpopular examples: homosexual marriage being illegal, a drug war instead of drug treatment programs, putting fluoride (a neurotoxin) in the water. Edit: those are current laws, for more popularly unpopular laws see slavery, the 18th amendment, the banning of blood transfusions, etc, etc
- discardorama 12y ago
  > regulations exist because society has decided its interests are better served by making folks play by a certain set of rules than by hitting peak market efficiency or whatever But society (and times) change. If there was a regulation that said 'the rightmost lane must always be reserved for horse-drawn carriages', we'd all be laughing about it.
dpatru 12y ago
Market economics is the aggregate of the deals that people make when they are not coerced. It's what results when both drivers and passengers are free to choose their best options. Regulation that disrupts this, by preventing drivers from offering services (through a medalion system) or prevents passengers from paying for services (by capping fares) make people worse off than they otherwise would be.
- jdmichal 12y ago
  You're willfully ignoring the positive parts of the regulations, like proper insurance and licensing requirements. And even those you listed have both positive and negative sides. It might be difficult to hail a taxi, but I do know that once I do, I can expect to pay the capped fare to go wherever I want to (common-carrier regulations mean they can't refuse you a trip within some bounds). I fail to see how the alternative, which would be flat-out refusal of service or drastically increased pricing to go to unpopular places, improves anyone's life.
- xorcist 12y ago
  It's what results when there is no incentive for people to know what their best options are. Regulation is to come to terms with drivers being dishonest about pricing to rip people off, and concerns about sexual advances on drunk passengers. Any one who argues against it should at least be prepared to have an answer to these problems.
- tripzilch 12y ago
  Not when two competitors are spending their money to actively make the other competitor's service worse. Then everybody is worse off. It's a negative spiral that either ends in a monopoly or a stalemate with money being wasted on holding off the other party's attacks. (assuming that Lyft is engaging in dirty tactics as well, but the argument works similar if it's one-sided)
danudey 12y ago
> That Uber so vehemently lobbies against sensible regulation, like an obligation for commercial insurance, speaks volumes. I'd love to know how many Uber drivers actually have an appropriate drive-for-hire license (in jurisdictions which have one). I wouldn't be surprised if it were far, far less than 100%.

ZachPruckowski 12y ago

>Why do regulations have to be in line with market economics in the first place? Yeah, I think this is something a lot of folks overlook - regulations exist because society has decided its interests are better served by making folks play by a certain set of rules than by hitting peak market efficiency or whatever. Now you can argue that a given regulation is not the best way to achieve a societal goal (for instance that limits on cab numbers don't reduce congestion much) or that they have worse externalities (medallion systems squeezing out the little guy in favor of big companies that can afford 6-figure medallion prices) or that the lost efficiency isn't worth society's goals, but straight up saying that they're "inefficient" isn't a case for anything.

dlss 12y ago
> regulations exist because society has decided its interests are better served by making folks play by a certain set of rules than by hitting peak market efficiency or whatever This is technically correct, but is forgetting that society is often wrong about what serves its interests. For some popularly unpopular examples: homosexual marriage being illegal, a drug war instead of drug treatment programs, putting fluoride (a neurotoxin) in the water. Edit: those are current laws, for more popularly unpopular laws see slavery, the 18th amendment, the banning of blood transfusions, etc, etc
discardorama 12y ago
> regulations exist because society has decided its interests are better served by making folks play by a certain set of rules than by hitting peak market efficiency or whatever But society (and times) change. If there was a regulation that said 'the rightmost lane must always be reserved for horse-drawn carriages', we'd all be laughing about it.

dpatru 12y ago

Market economics is the aggregate of the deals that people make when they are not coerced. It's what results when both drivers and passengers are free to choose their best options. Regulation that disrupts this, by preventing drivers from offering services (through a medalion system) or prevents passengers from paying for services (by capping fares) make people worse off than they otherwise would be.

jdmichal 12y ago
You're willfully ignoring the positive parts of the regulations, like proper insurance and licensing requirements. And even those you listed have both positive and negative sides. It might be difficult to hail a taxi, but I do know that once I do, I can expect to pay the capped fare to go wherever I want to (common-carrier regulations mean they can't refuse you a trip within some bounds). I fail to see how the alternative, which would be flat-out refusal of service or drastically increased pricing to go to unpopular places, improves anyone's life.
xorcist 12y ago
It's what results when there is no incentive for people to know what their best options are. Regulation is to come to terms with drivers being dishonest about pricing to rip people off, and concerns about sexual advances on drunk passengers. Any one who argues against it should at least be prepared to have an answer to these problems.
tripzilch 12y ago
Not when two competitors are spending their money to actively make the other competitor's service worse. Then everybody is worse off. It's a negative spiral that either ends in a monopoly or a stalemate with money being wasted on holding off the other party's attacks. (assuming that Lyft is engaging in dirty tactics as well, but the argument works similar if it's one-sided)

danudey 12y ago

> That Uber so vehemently lobbies against sensible regulation, like an obligation for commercial insurance, speaks volumes. I'd love to know how many Uber drivers actually have an appropriate drive-for-hire license (in jurisdictions which have one). I wouldn't be surprised if it were far, far less than 100%.