5 ms·

Then don't go to AirBnB places. Go to hotels. It really is that simple. Don't deprive other people of choice because you don't want to choose.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
We can say that, but it doesn't end there. Paying folks money means I get value in return. There will be disputes about the value; lawyers get involved. The whole hotel-thing is 100's of years of working that out in law. Now we start over? Just because AirBnB is cool, and we want it to succeed? I don't think this is going to end well.
hackuser 11y ago
> Then don't go to AirBnB places. Go to hotels. That doesn't address safety and taxation issues.
- mason240 11y ago
  It does. If you are concerned with safety issues, then don't go there.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > It does. If you are concerned with safety issues, then don't go there. The 'free market' doesn't address safety well; that's why we have regulations. For example, it's not sufficient to say, 'if you are concerned about the safety of this restaurant's food, don't eat there'. No consumer has enough information to make that judgment reliably, and many consumers have additional challenges (consider the elderly, travelers from other countries who lack English or culture literacy, etc.). Also, the remedy (the Airbnb host gets bad reviews) is too late if someone is injured or loses their property; the system has failed at that point.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      > The 'free market' doesn't address safety well; that's why we have regulations. We also have bonding, insurance and civil liability, which serve the same purpose in a more flexible way.
      - hackuser 11y ago
        > We also have bonding, insurance and civil liability, which serve the same purpose in a more flexible way. Those solutions are useful, but only sometimes work and when they do they only provide money after the fact. In many cases, such as injury, death, or crippling fraud (e.g., an elderly retiree loses their home and savings), that's not sufficient.
        humanrebar 11y ago
        The way insurance works is that risky behavior leads to higher premiums. Insuring a sports car is more expensive because studies show risky driving is associated with sports cars. Hosts that don't treat neighbors respectfully or guests safely will quickly see bonds confiscated and premiums raised until they are out of the business. Likewise, insurers often provide discounts for good behavior like taking safety courses, a history without incidents, installing anti theft devices, etc. And requiring insurance also gives neighbors a recourse (payouts from the policy) if the block is set on for or something (though there are already laws and regulations about that sort of thing).
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > And requiring insurance also gives neighbors a recourse (payouts from the policy) if the block is set on for or something No, legal liability rules give the neighbors recourse. What insurance and/accountability bond requirements do is reduce the risk that insolvency will prevent a liability judgment from being satisfied (though one which exceeds the required coverage may still not be fully satisfied if the liable party is insolvent.)
        mdpopescu 11y ago
        I am unaware of any "sufficient" solution in any field. Despite millions of pages of regulations, people are still being injured, killed or defrauded.
eropple 11y ago
That choice inflicts negative externalities on everyone else. I understand that the concept of negative externalities throws a wrench into this sort of shallow pseudoeconomic theorizing, but they exist and must be considered in a credible discussion.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

We can say that, but it doesn't end there. Paying folks money means I get value in return. There will be disputes about the value; lawyers get involved. The whole hotel-thing is 100's of years of working that out in law. Now we start over? Just because AirBnB is cool, and we want it to succeed? I don't think this is going to end well.

hackuser 11y ago

> Then don't go to AirBnB places. Go to hotels. That doesn't address safety and taxation issues.

mason240 11y ago
It does. If you are concerned with safety issues, then don't go there.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > It does. If you are concerned with safety issues, then don't go there. The 'free market' doesn't address safety well; that's why we have regulations. For example, it's not sufficient to say, 'if you are concerned about the safety of this restaurant's food, don't eat there'. No consumer has enough information to make that judgment reliably, and many consumers have additional challenges (consider the elderly, travelers from other countries who lack English or culture literacy, etc.). Also, the remedy (the Airbnb host gets bad reviews) is too late if someone is injured or loses their property; the system has failed at that point.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    > The 'free market' doesn't address safety well; that's why we have regulations. We also have bonding, insurance and civil liability, which serve the same purpose in a more flexible way.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > We also have bonding, insurance and civil liability, which serve the same purpose in a more flexible way. Those solutions are useful, but only sometimes work and when they do they only provide money after the fact. In many cases, such as injury, death, or crippling fraud (e.g., an elderly retiree loses their home and savings), that's not sufficient.
      - humanrebar 11y ago
        The way insurance works is that risky behavior leads to higher premiums. Insuring a sports car is more expensive because studies show risky driving is associated with sports cars. Hosts that don't treat neighbors respectfully or guests safely will quickly see bonds confiscated and premiums raised until they are out of the business. Likewise, insurers often provide discounts for good behavior like taking safety courses, a history without incidents, installing anti theft devices, etc. And requiring insurance also gives neighbors a recourse (payouts from the policy) if the block is set on for or something (though there are already laws and regulations about that sort of thing).
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > And requiring insurance also gives neighbors a recourse (payouts from the policy) if the block is set on for or something No, legal liability rules give the neighbors recourse. What insurance and/accountability bond requirements do is reduce the risk that insolvency will prevent a liability judgment from being satisfied (though one which exceeds the required coverage may still not be fully satisfied if the liable party is insolvent.)
      - mdpopescu 11y ago
        I am unaware of any "sufficient" solution in any field. Despite millions of pages of regulations, people are still being injured, killed or defrauded.

eropple 11y ago

That choice inflicts negative externalities on everyone else. I understand that the concept of negative externalities throws a wrench into this sort of shallow pseudoeconomic theorizing, but they exist and must be considered in a credible discussion.