Careful now. It's daytime in Europe, so the more Laisser faire (US-free-market-style) arguments have a higher change of getting down voted. This will correct a bit in about 6 hours when the East Coast wakes up. I'm not judging it, it's just the way us europeans are 'wired'.
The taxi market is one ripe thats ripe for disruption. There's lots of demand and low, all-the-same companies offering a low quality/high cost service. It's also one thats build a lot of rules around it, some for the clients protection and a lot to prevent competition. Large established companies always prefer more rules because it absolutely kills new companies trying to enter a market.
The taxi market is absolutely ripe for disruption. But GP did not provide any reasons why Uber should be the way to do it. Taxi companies are regulated for a variety of reasons, not just to keep out the competition and as far as I know nothing stops Uber drivers from getting the same certifications as regular taxis. If they do that and they are still blocked or if they are denied certification then you have a genuine case of unfair competition. Until then Uber is tilting the playing field in their direction by offering a product that competes unfairly with the regulated drivers.
Maybe this is the only way in which such a regulation effort can be challenged but I'm not convinced of that.
As for the 'careful now' and so on bits, anybody quoting Ayn Rand verbatim without adding much to the conversation is probably going to get downvoted, it's not as if she's an authority in the field of economics, and most of her writing displays a shockingly bad understanding of the field.
Thank you for the insights. A quick reply:
>Taxi companies are regulated for a variety of reasons
Correct. But mostly because they made a mess of their nr1 job: transporting people
Today we have new and far better ways t regulate a driver's behavior. Payment in advance, navigation to check the route and a easy way to judge the driver afterwards. That takes care of most of the complaints.
But that still leaves the certification of the vehicle, and with the number of kms taxis drive that's not a luxury. Your regular TUV checkups are targeted at regular drivers, not professional drivers. Your insurance company also won't like it if you start ferrying people around on a 150K km/year plan when paying for the statistical chance of getting in an accident based on 40K km/year.
In all these cases Uber drivers are using rules and regulations (and statistics) applicable to personal transportation and applying those towards a business.
And here we get to the heart of the matter: Individual or group responsibility. Everyone is responsible for their own insurance. Every individual has to communicate an estimate of the miles/km they plan to drive in a year to receive a correct insurance. If you fail to do so, you will loose your insurance. No need to regulate this extra and above the systems already in place. As for yearly or 2-yearly checkups of the car, both are also tied to usage. Most people will drive in and around the city, not accross the country. (This is also why Rand has a place in this discussion promoting the über-individual. I also don't always agree with her conclusions but she did address a lot of concerns of her time, half a century ago).
At a guess, insurance companies and passengers alike are not in a position to verify all these issues when they sign up / catch a ride. So some laws were passed and Uber is now ignoring those laws.
That private individuals can lie on their application forms and skip certain tests that are required is not a businessmodel.
>Taxi companies are regulated for a variety of reasons Correct. But mostly because they made a mess of their nr1 job: transporting people
This is not how I feel about it in Germany. Whenever I needed a cab, I got one, for a fair, reasonable price. Might be a little longer if I'm out in the fields or when a thunderstorm hit Berlin and there's no public transport, but sooner or later, I was picked up. Taxis are treated as part of the public transport system here, they have obligations (must transport everyone for the same price, must provide basic service at any time, regulated rates, ...) and in return receive benefits - effectively a monopoly on the taxi market.
Now, if we decide to repeal the benefits and allow UberPop, how are we going to make sure we fulfill the obligations? No, surge pricing is not a solution. There's probably a solution, but I'm very much not convinced that Uber is the solution, so until someone presents a genuinely better system, I'll stick with what we have. It's not perfect, but good enough.
Is there a law forcing Taxi drivers to go to work during a hurricane or New Year's Eve or something? If not, how is the current system of not being able to find a ride better than Uber's system of making you pay a fair market price for it?
Yes, at least in Germany, there is. Taxi companies are obliged to provide a minimum level of service or loose the license. The administration can even order a license holder to expand his business if there's public need. (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/pbefg/__21.html)
I can't read German, do you mind telling me the details of the minimum level of service? If it's per week or per month it doesn't solve the problem when there's inclement weather or a holiday or a conference, etc.
The law itself does not specify the level, it grant the authority do decide to the relevant authorities. (For example the administration in Berlin), so things will vary depending on where you are.
Generally speaking I haven't had any problem finding a cab in Berlin. The longest wait was after a thunderstorm took out most of the public transport a couple of years ago and that took like 20 minutes somewhere in the outskirts. I usually either flag one down on the road or use the smartphone app.
You make a strong case for the existing taxi-companies. They sure do sound a lot better then Amsterdam taxi's. If they are so loved, I really don't see why they should protest... They will win over client any with their superiour service.
They don't protest against Uber as such - they do protest that Uber is skirting the obligations that cost them money and use those savings to undercut their prices. Which is a fair point to make. Uber could easily license their cars as regular taxis and outcompete the regular taxi service. They might even provide better service at the same time - I'm all in favor of that. But they choose not to and then whine about how backwards we all are here that we can't see progress.
Yes because establishing a monopoly of one big US company rather than say 200 local taxi cos in a city is such a fantastic US-free-market-thing to do. Hard to fight against a multinational corporation with the marketing power of $1,500,000,000 in funding behind it against a 'Meier Taxi' or 'Müller Taxi' - some dudes with 5 taxi cabs trying to make a living in a harsh market environment.
Since when disruption means disrespecting the law ? If your business is illegal it's going to get shut down,wether you are in Europe or USA. Or why dont you make an app that sales crack cocaine and sees what happens in USA ?
After all,there is a demand for that,there should be an app for that /s .
> Careful now. It's daytime in Europe, so the more Laisser faire (US-free-market-style) arguments have a higher change of getting down voted.
And please,stop hating on Europeans, your bigotry is showing.
Iam European actually. I am not a bigot. I described a method of thinking. A perspective if you will. Most Europeans will try to see a debate from society's perspective and Americans from the individual's perceptive. Something that is persistent in a lot of discussions here between US and EU professionals.
