5 ms·

pg nailed it yesterday on Twitter: "Uber is so obviously a good thing that you can measure how corrupt cities are by how hard they try to suppress it." https://

pg nailed it yesterday on Twitter: "Uber is so obviously a good thing that you can measure how corrupt cities are by how hard they try to suppress it." https://twitter.com/paulg/status/222462460978937856 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/222462460978937856 Edit: actually I meant this tweet from yesterday: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/616683543830339584 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/616683543830339584 which had the other one embbeded

tomp 11y ago
pg is a smart man, but this argument is ridiculously stupid. "Crime is so obviously a good thing that you can measure how corrupt cities are by how hard they try to suppress it."
- viscanti 11y ago
  Creating laws doesn't make something moral/normative. The fact that a law exists and whether it's "good" are two different things. Breaking a "bad" law might be a crime, but I'm not convinced that it's "bad". This is a country that is doing everything it can to create laws which increase the cost of transportation and reduce the ability to get a ride. It's a law that makes things less safe (there aren't enough taxis to properly service late night bars so people are forced to drive drunk - people die because of the law to protect a monopoly). We can look at the law and the reason for the law and ask if the price for protecting a government granted monopoly is worth the price (lives and money from increased transportation costs) paid.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    "so people are forced to drive drunk - people die because of the law to protect a monopoly" Jesus christ this is literally the stupidest thing I have heard all day, and I have been following what is going on reddit since early morning. If anyone ever says they were "forced to drunk drive" by anything they deserve to be slapped and have their licence taken away, forever. If you go drinking, you don't bring your car with you!!!!!!
  - jarek 11y ago
    > This is a country that is doing everything it can to create laws which increase the cost of transportation and reduce the ability to get a ride. Which country? The country Blablacar came out of?
  - mmarx 11y ago
    > people die because of the law to protect a monopoly More like people die because they (or, quite possibly other people) choose to break the law against drunk driving?
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      More like people die because they (or, quite possibly other people) choose to drive drunk. The presence of the law should help deter them from making that choice. But that doesn't establish that laws should always be followed or shouldn't be changed - it just supports the case that that law should be followed and should not be changed, which no one was arguing against. Other things also help decrease drunk driving. Healthy social norms can have a big impact. Convenient alternatives also has a big impact. What we're discussing here is a particular, especially convenient alternative. It is wrong to excuse people who put others' lives at risk because doing otherwise is inconvenient. But it is incorrect not to expect that some people will do so, and account for that as a part of the impact of laws.
- phatfish 11y ago
  Im no fan of Uber and their tactics, and this pg guy doesn't sound very smart from that comment to me -- but there is a distinction to be made between the legal and illegal operations Uber run. Using a mobile phone as an automated dispatcher for cabs is a fine idea, and improves the experience for the customer. Breaking local laws relating to insurance, background checks, surge pricing, provisions for disabled passengers etc. is NOT fine.
  - mckoss 11y ago
    BTW, pg is Paul Graham, founder of y combinator and creator of hacker news. So, "this guy" is generally very well respected by the the users of this site.
    - yardie 11y ago
      Yes he is the grand poobah and founder of YC. But in this instance, his tweet is very much wrong.
    - phatfish 11y ago
      Fair enough, he has a lot of karma to burn then ;)
    - throwaway12309 11y ago
      yeah, but when he says something so stupid he should be called on it, just because it is pg doesn't mean he holds the absolute truth
aidanf 11y ago
This is nonsense. Taxi services are regulated for good reason. Many cities and countries have well-regulated transparent taxi industries. Uber often seems to seek to bypass that regulation because, eh, disruption. I would expect any city to do something when faced with a private corporation attempting to flout their laws for profit. Doing so is in no way correlated with any measure of how corrupt that city is.
- ousta 11y ago
  taxis services are regulated for good reason yes. but it doesn't mean the regulation is efficient. when you pay for a service that provides you exactly the same experience than a discounted service like Uber then there is no sense for this service. Taxi drivers in france is expensive and drivers are uneducated, rude, unpolite. Compare this to drivers in england and japan where they respect the customer and provide a good service and then you will understand why uber disrupting french taxis. because the regulation is only based about how much money you need to put to buy a license while the regulation should be about having a proper formation and learn about customer service.
  - jacalata 11y ago
    So if Uber is disrupting French taxis because the drivers are rude and English taxi drivers are polite then why is Uber catching on in England too?
    - ousta 11y ago
      Actually i have limited experience in UK but better on Japan where i lived long. Still I do not think it is the same population in UK using taxis and ubers. I am almost certain that the people using Uber in UK are people who almost never used taxis in their life. I don't see why would someone would change from taxi to Uber in countries such as England or Japan. if you take a taxi that means you can afford it either you would take public transportation in 90% of the cases. Uber in UK is just a totally different service than Taxis. as long as taxi drivers are well trained professionals with a sense of providing quality service then they don't compete with Uber. It is same with amazon and librarians. Librarian assume they just have to sell books. Since amazon they have to provide a service , help the customer , advise him, instruct him, guide him. Those things amazon can't do and those things will save the librarians. it is the same for cab drivers. Uber is a good for us customers. Obviously it won't be a good thing when they will be on a monopoly situation where they will increase prices after having destroyed concurrents but who cares?
goldfeld 11y ago
"Uber is so obviously a good thing (for the broken US system as well as for the US startup scene, the industry with which I line my pockets)". His statement reads like a joke to me, a parody of himself. Uber might offer a better service to people today, but what's the long term (and the really long term) price of allowing this monopolizing corporation into your city? Do you sell out? In portuguese we say "barato sai caro", meaning cheap/easy options may turn out expensive in the long run.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  You could look at the data, cities where Uber operates, and decide for yourself. Its not necessary to speculate. Also, its not a monopoly - competition exists already. Get the city out of the business of selling access - let the free market provide.
  - goldfeld 11y ago
    I don't like to let the "free market" (that is, big investor money) provide for a basic need such as transportation. See my other comment regarding "monopoly".
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Pessimist. Again, look at cities where the free market provides transportation. No need to speculate.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    If it is not a monopoly, then it is necessary to speculate about what happens if it becomes one. That said, I think that's something we can address as (and if) it comes up.
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  why would it be a monopolizing corporation? There are competitors such as Lyft and Singaporean GrabTaxi. The monopolizing corporation is actually the cab companies. Think about it!
mrweasel 11y ago
Uber has it's share of issues. Just because the alternative is just as bad or worse doesn't automatically make Uber good. Not all laws are in place to mess with Uber or suppress competition, some of them are actually to the benefit of the public. Requiring insurance or having the driver registered as self-employed doesn't seem unreasonable.
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  why doesn't it seem unreasonable? I mean, why can't it be up to the person using the app to call that driver or not? The app has the person's name, their rating from other customers, etc. Why can't the individual consumer decide what to do with that information ?
  - mmarx 11y ago
    >> Not all laws are in place to mess with Uber or suppress competition, some of them are actually to the benefit of the public. Requiring insurance or having the driver registered as self-employed doesn't seem unreasonable. > why doesn't it seem unreasonable? I mean, why can't it be up to the person using the app to call that driver or not? How could it possibly be reasonable to leave it up to the person using the app to decide whether the driver requires insurance or not, when an accident may easily lead to a third party having claims against the driver?
    - vasilipupkin 11y ago
      muddling the issue. At least in Chicago, drivers are already required to have insurance. Why do they need to have special additional insurance if they are Uber drivers? But, again, in Chicago, the city and state worked this out with Uber and came to a compromise.
      - mmarx 11y ago
        If insurance is required in any case, there's no choice left for the app user to make, so why should it be left to them? That said, I very much doubt that the required insurance covers comercial transportation of passengers (which uber certainly is), so that explains why they need “additional” insurance covering that.
ianstallings 11y ago
This is exactly why Twitter sucks for discussion. You couldn't possibly illuminate a viewpoint on any matter using it so you end up making broad statements that get trounced by reality. Particularly an issue with such nuances.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vasilipupkin 11y ago
It is obviously a good thing, but it is also unfair to a) pass a law that says you must buy a 100k license to be a cab driver and b) allow a company to operate which makes your 100k investment worthless. True, this law is unnecessary, but it's not hard to see why taxi drivers who paid for their licenses fair and square are upset At least in Chicago, Uber and cabs seem to coexist pretty well. The main difference is, cab drivers seem to have a bit more clue as to the layout of the city and more efficient at knowing directions etc
pratyushag 11y ago
Somebody should make a graph about this to agree or disagree with this hypothesis.
chinathrow 11y ago
That tweet is from 2012.

tomp 11y ago

pg is a smart man, but this argument is ridiculously stupid. "Crime is so obviously a good thing that you can measure how corrupt cities are by how hard they try to suppress it."

viscanti 11y ago
Creating laws doesn't make something moral/normative. The fact that a law exists and whether it's "good" are two different things. Breaking a "bad" law might be a crime, but I'm not convinced that it's "bad". This is a country that is doing everything it can to create laws which increase the cost of transportation and reduce the ability to get a ride. It's a law that makes things less safe (there aren't enough taxis to properly service late night bars so people are forced to drive drunk - people die because of the law to protect a monopoly). We can look at the law and the reason for the law and ask if the price for protecting a government granted monopoly is worth the price (lives and money from increased transportation costs) paid.
- gambiting 11y ago
  "so people are forced to drive drunk - people die because of the law to protect a monopoly" Jesus christ this is literally the stupidest thing I have heard all day, and I have been following what is going on reddit since early morning. If anyone ever says they were "forced to drunk drive" by anything they deserve to be slapped and have their licence taken away, forever. If you go drinking, you don't bring your car with you!!!!!!
- jarek 11y ago
  > This is a country that is doing everything it can to create laws which increase the cost of transportation and reduce the ability to get a ride. Which country? The country Blablacar came out of?
- mmarx 11y ago
  > people die because of the law to protect a monopoly More like people die because they (or, quite possibly other people) choose to break the law against drunk driving?
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    More like people die because they (or, quite possibly other people) choose to drive drunk. The presence of the law should help deter them from making that choice. But that doesn't establish that laws should always be followed or shouldn't be changed - it just supports the case that that law should be followed and should not be changed, which no one was arguing against. Other things also help decrease drunk driving. Healthy social norms can have a big impact. Convenient alternatives also has a big impact. What we're discussing here is a particular, especially convenient alternative. It is wrong to excuse people who put others' lives at risk because doing otherwise is inconvenient. But it is incorrect not to expect that some people will do so, and account for that as a part of the impact of laws.
phatfish 11y ago
Im no fan of Uber and their tactics, and this pg guy doesn't sound very smart from that comment to me -- but there is a distinction to be made between the legal and illegal operations Uber run. Using a mobile phone as an automated dispatcher for cabs is a fine idea, and improves the experience for the customer. Breaking local laws relating to insurance, background checks, surge pricing, provisions for disabled passengers etc. is NOT fine.
- mckoss 11y ago
  BTW, pg is Paul Graham, founder of y combinator and creator of hacker news. So, "this guy" is generally very well respected by the the users of this site.
  - yardie 11y ago
    Yes he is the grand poobah and founder of YC. But in this instance, his tweet is very much wrong.
  - phatfish 11y ago
    Fair enough, he has a lot of karma to burn then ;)
  - throwaway12309 11y ago
    yeah, but when he says something so stupid he should be called on it, just because it is pg doesn't mean he holds the absolute truth

aidanf 11y ago

This is nonsense. Taxi services are regulated for good reason. Many cities and countries have well-regulated transparent taxi industries. Uber often seems to seek to bypass that regulation because, eh, disruption. I would expect any city to do something when faced with a private corporation attempting to flout their laws for profit. Doing so is in no way correlated with any measure of how corrupt that city is.

ousta 11y ago
taxis services are regulated for good reason yes. but it doesn't mean the regulation is efficient. when you pay for a service that provides you exactly the same experience than a discounted service like Uber then there is no sense for this service. Taxi drivers in france is expensive and drivers are uneducated, rude, unpolite. Compare this to drivers in england and japan where they respect the customer and provide a good service and then you will understand why uber disrupting french taxis. because the regulation is only based about how much money you need to put to buy a license while the regulation should be about having a proper formation and learn about customer service.
- jacalata 11y ago
  So if Uber is disrupting French taxis because the drivers are rude and English taxi drivers are polite then why is Uber catching on in England too?
  - ousta 11y ago
    Actually i have limited experience in UK but better on Japan where i lived long. Still I do not think it is the same population in UK using taxis and ubers. I am almost certain that the people using Uber in UK are people who almost never used taxis in their life. I don't see why would someone would change from taxi to Uber in countries such as England or Japan. if you take a taxi that means you can afford it either you would take public transportation in 90% of the cases. Uber in UK is just a totally different service than Taxis. as long as taxi drivers are well trained professionals with a sense of providing quality service then they don't compete with Uber. It is same with amazon and librarians. Librarian assume they just have to sell books. Since amazon they have to provide a service , help the customer , advise him, instruct him, guide him. Those things amazon can't do and those things will save the librarians. it is the same for cab drivers. Uber is a good for us customers. Obviously it won't be a good thing when they will be on a monopoly situation where they will increase prices after having destroyed concurrents but who cares?

goldfeld 11y ago

"Uber is so obviously a good thing (for the broken US system as well as for the US startup scene, the industry with which I line my pockets)". His statement reads like a joke to me, a parody of himself. Uber might offer a better service to people today, but what's the long term (and the really long term) price of allowing this monopolizing corporation into your city? Do you sell out? In portuguese we say "barato sai caro", meaning cheap/easy options may turn out expensive in the long run.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
You could look at the data, cities where Uber operates, and decide for yourself. Its not necessary to speculate. Also, its not a monopoly - competition exists already. Get the city out of the business of selling access - let the free market provide.
- goldfeld 11y ago
  I don't like to let the "free market" (that is, big investor money) provide for a basic need such as transportation. See my other comment regarding "monopoly".
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Pessimist. Again, look at cities where the free market provides transportation. No need to speculate.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  If it is not a monopoly, then it is necessary to speculate about what happens if it becomes one. That said, I think that's something we can address as (and if) it comes up.
vasilipupkin 11y ago
why would it be a monopolizing corporation? There are competitors such as Lyft and Singaporean GrabTaxi. The monopolizing corporation is actually the cab companies. Think about it!

mrweasel 11y ago

Uber has it's share of issues. Just because the alternative is just as bad or worse doesn't automatically make Uber good. Not all laws are in place to mess with Uber or suppress competition, some of them are actually to the benefit of the public. Requiring insurance or having the driver registered as self-employed doesn't seem unreasonable.

vasilipupkin 11y ago
why doesn't it seem unreasonable? I mean, why can't it be up to the person using the app to call that driver or not? The app has the person's name, their rating from other customers, etc. Why can't the individual consumer decide what to do with that information ?
- mmarx 11y ago
  >> Not all laws are in place to mess with Uber or suppress competition, some of them are actually to the benefit of the public. Requiring insurance or having the driver registered as self-employed doesn't seem unreasonable. > why doesn't it seem unreasonable? I mean, why can't it be up to the person using the app to call that driver or not? How could it possibly be reasonable to leave it up to the person using the app to decide whether the driver requires insurance or not, when an accident may easily lead to a third party having claims against the driver?
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    muddling the issue. At least in Chicago, drivers are already required to have insurance. Why do they need to have special additional insurance if they are Uber drivers? But, again, in Chicago, the city and state worked this out with Uber and came to a compromise.
    - mmarx 11y ago
      If insurance is required in any case, there's no choice left for the app user to make, so why should it be left to them? That said, I very much doubt that the required insurance covers comercial transportation of passengers (which uber certainly is), so that explains why they need “additional” insurance covering that.

ianstallings 11y ago

This is exactly why Twitter sucks for discussion. You couldn't possibly illuminate a viewpoint on any matter using it so you end up making broad statements that get trounced by reality. Particularly an issue with such nuances.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vasilipupkin 11y ago

It is obviously a good thing, but it is also unfair to a) pass a law that says you must buy a 100k license to be a cab driver and b) allow a company to operate which makes your 100k investment worthless. True, this law is unnecessary, but it's not hard to see why taxi drivers who paid for their licenses fair and square are upset At least in Chicago, Uber and cabs seem to coexist pretty well. The main difference is, cab drivers seem to have a bit more clue as to the layout of the city and more efficient at knowing directions etc

pratyushag 11y ago

Somebody should make a graph about this to agree or disagree with this hypothesis.

chinathrow 11y ago

That tweet is from 2012.