4 ms·

"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 rea

"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!
- goldfeld 11y ago
  I think of it as being monopolizing by virtue of being a startup with network effect and economies of scale. It's a winner take all market, like Google and Facebook do monopolize most of the world's communication and browsing. Maybe it's not the best use of the word monopoly. Colonizing would be far better, but that reeks of american imperialism, oops.
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    sorry, now you are just not making sense. I think to have these debates, we need to agree to think clearly about the problem. Colonizing? They are providing a service. Nobody is forcing anybody to use the service. There are three issues here a) many ( not all ) of the regulations that make cabs scarce and expensive are unnecessary b) it is not fair to people who paid for the licenses to allow a competitor to operate without licenses c) Uber is good for consumers. Somehow, a reasonable compromise must be found
    - goldfeld 11y ago
      Nobody is forcing anybody in the strict sense, yes. If you ignore the network effect, even more so. How can I connect with friends without Facebook when everyone else is on there (there or on instagram and whatsapp, also FB property). How can I not use Uber in the future if they root out and kill off taxis, and even public transportation is left wanting when everyone is just happy to use Uber? And just because everyone's happy to use it (it's cheaper even) doesn't mean it's good in the long run, which is my point.
      - vasilipupkin 11y ago
        ok, but we don't really know for sure what is good in the long run. That would require perfect foresight about the long run. If it is cheaper and more convenient and people like it, then great ! in order to mitigate your concerns, society needs to remove barriers to competition not add more barriers
srj 11y ago
The existing taxi industry is a protected monopoly. In a hypothetical future where uber has displaced the competition any other company could spring up and take their business.
- goldfeld 11y ago
  Just like a retailer sprang up and took Amazon's lead in the ecommerce business, right? Right? Some corporations become too big to fail, like Google or Facebook--they keep buying off other companies and buying laws too. America is a lobby nation. How can you honesly expect anyone else to displace the trillion-dollar company that Uber will eventually become? Unless you actually mean companies will spring up, present a threat, then get acquihired by Uber^. Money talks! ^ If you expect an enterpreneur to face Uber head-on despite multi-billion dollar offers on the one side and immense legal hindrance on the other, you expect a hero. We should expect a democratic society, not american heroes.

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!

goldfeld 11y ago
I think of it as being monopolizing by virtue of being a startup with network effect and economies of scale. It's a winner take all market, like Google and Facebook do monopolize most of the world's communication and browsing. Maybe it's not the best use of the word monopoly. Colonizing would be far better, but that reeks of american imperialism, oops.
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  sorry, now you are just not making sense. I think to have these debates, we need to agree to think clearly about the problem. Colonizing? They are providing a service. Nobody is forcing anybody to use the service. There are three issues here a) many ( not all ) of the regulations that make cabs scarce and expensive are unnecessary b) it is not fair to people who paid for the licenses to allow a competitor to operate without licenses c) Uber is good for consumers. Somehow, a reasonable compromise must be found
  - goldfeld 11y ago
    Nobody is forcing anybody in the strict sense, yes. If you ignore the network effect, even more so. How can I connect with friends without Facebook when everyone else is on there (there or on instagram and whatsapp, also FB property). How can I not use Uber in the future if they root out and kill off taxis, and even public transportation is left wanting when everyone is just happy to use Uber? And just because everyone's happy to use it (it's cheaper even) doesn't mean it's good in the long run, which is my point.
    - vasilipupkin 11y ago
      ok, but we don't really know for sure what is good in the long run. That would require perfect foresight about the long run. If it is cheaper and more convenient and people like it, then great ! in order to mitigate your concerns, society needs to remove barriers to competition not add more barriers

srj 11y ago

The existing taxi industry is a protected monopoly. In a hypothetical future where uber has displaced the competition any other company could spring up and take their business.

goldfeld 11y ago
Just like a retailer sprang up and took Amazon's lead in the ecommerce business, right? Right? Some corporations become too big to fail, like Google or Facebook--they keep buying off other companies and buying laws too. America is a lobby nation. How can you honesly expect anyone else to displace the trillion-dollar company that Uber will eventually become? Unless you actually mean companies will spring up, present a threat, then get acquihired by Uber^. Money talks! ^ If you expect an enterpreneur to face Uber head-on despite multi-billion dollar offers on the one side and immense legal hindrance on the other, you expect a hero. We should expect a democratic society, not american heroes.