4 ms·

I'm not sure I really follow the line of reasoning in this article. It starts with the word "communism" in the title, probably because it's a tried and true way

I'm not sure I really follow the line of reasoning in this article. It starts with the word "communism" in the title, probably because it's a tried and true way of getting people riled up with minor effort. Then it seems to make the argument that these business models don't create new markets, but optimize existing ones. But then the argument that would justify the title, as I understand it, is "if communists took over things, we would be living in a communist society". Indeed! And if martians took over, we would live in a martian society.

usrusr 11y ago
The complete absence of anything warranting the letters "communism" in the title was a huge letdown. And it would be so easy to make a relevant point: in a traditional market economy, it is very much possible to incrementally grow from a single taxi into a larger operation, or from a small b&b into a hotel, into a chain. Both communist and centralizes "market as a service" economies don't want that to happen, hence "dotcommunism".
- fnordsensei 11y ago
  Do you mean that if you're driving for Uber, you're pretty much prohibited from creating your own fleet of taxis? If that is what you mean, isn't that the case when driving for traditional taxi companies as well?
  - usrusr 11y ago
    Sure, but in the traditional taxi system, it did happen, over and over again, therefore it must be possible. I really don't see how the same would happen under Uber without them weighing in to either claim the share of that additional middleman or to protect their "drivers are not really doing business, so regulations for professionals do not apply to them/us" illusion.
    - fnordsensei 11y ago
      Agreed, that's a problem, and it sounds primarily like a problem of labor law. If part of the strategy for Uber has been to effectively keep taxi drivers in some kind of employment grey zone, then I assume that the goal is to have the drivers sign away as many rights as possible, while at the same time burdening Uber with as little responsibility as possible. The point of entrepreneurship is that you are able to trade security for freedom and potential material success. If Uber drivers (or anyone else for that matter) are left with no security, no freedom and no prospects for material success, then something's not right. I write all this without actually knowing what Uber's strategy or philosophy with regards to this is, hence all the "if-then"'s.

usrusr 11y ago

The complete absence of anything warranting the letters "communism" in the title was a huge letdown. And it would be so easy to make a relevant point: in a traditional market economy, it is very much possible to incrementally grow from a single taxi into a larger operation, or from a small b&b into a hotel, into a chain. Both communist and centralizes "market as a service" economies don't want that to happen, hence "dotcommunism".

fnordsensei 11y ago
Do you mean that if you're driving for Uber, you're pretty much prohibited from creating your own fleet of taxis? If that is what you mean, isn't that the case when driving for traditional taxi companies as well?
- usrusr 11y ago
  Sure, but in the traditional taxi system, it did happen, over and over again, therefore it must be possible. I really don't see how the same would happen under Uber without them weighing in to either claim the share of that additional middleman or to protect their "drivers are not really doing business, so regulations for professionals do not apply to them/us" illusion.
  - fnordsensei 11y ago
    Agreed, that's a problem, and it sounds primarily like a problem of labor law. If part of the strategy for Uber has been to effectively keep taxi drivers in some kind of employment grey zone, then I assume that the goal is to have the drivers sign away as many rights as possible, while at the same time burdening Uber with as little responsibility as possible. The point of entrepreneurship is that you are able to trade security for freedom and potential material success. If Uber drivers (or anyone else for that matter) are left with no security, no freedom and no prospects for material success, then something's not right. I write all this without actually knowing what Uber's strategy or philosophy with regards to this is, hence all the "if-then"'s.