If they charged the amount to of money needed to actually turn a profit/breakeven then suddenly all those regular taxi companies would be competitive at worst and cheaper in many situations.
Edit: About price dumping, this is a myth. When has this ever happened and tell me how could Uber remain a monopoly if its prices are too high? Competitors will show up because there will be good money to be made. The only monopolies that can last despite being overpriced are the ones protected by state violence and state laws that make competition illegal, a good example here would be, I don't know, Italian taxi companies?
Also see on how accusations of 'price dumping' are always used as a disguised for protectionism https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ecjilt/23876.html
I'm a high school IT teacher, so I don't pretend to know much about economics :)
You may be right that the market will work itself out. I don't think free markets are a solution to every problem though. Some industries are highly regulated with state sanctioned monopolies because the free market can't be relied upon to provide a reasonable solution. Look to US healthcare as an example of free market economics gone awry.
The SV mantra of "move fast and break things" works well if you're building some new dating app, not so much if you're potentially disrupting something that's actually important. If Uber strong arms its way into a market and then subsequently shits the bed, then what? How do local economies deal with the resulting vacuum? Maybe the vacuum get's filled, and if it doesn't? Then what?
There are other industries where such disruption is not tolerated. Can you imagine if power, sanitation or road maintenance was completely deregulated and some foreign entrant was allowed to come in like a wrecking ball to experiment with "innovative" new models? The potential downsides far outweigh the possible upsides.
Maybe taxis don't fit into the critical infrastructure jigsaw puzzle. I'm not qualified to comment on that, but I can see how Uber's tactics can have a net negative impact on the communities it enters. We'll see how it all plays out in good time. There are enough markets that are allowing Uber to operate that eventually it will shake out one way or another.
Taxi-drivers willing or not have to pay taxes. They definitely do also "black" money, but at the end of the month they'll have to declare X euros in / Y euros out.
Do you have to do the same if you are a driver for Uber?
Calling the banning of a company which has pointedly ignored every law that gets in its way "fascism" is just childish, and when it's referring to a country that actually suffered the results of having a Fascist government, it's offensive childishness.
You do that so that you can take a stranglehold on the market and then dictate prices yourselves.
It's the texbook definition of dumping:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
and protecting against that practice is NOT the texbook definition of fascism at all, quite the opposite; also keep in mind there are no taxi corporations here, as the taxi license must be owned by the individual driving it (with some small and irrelevant exception).
That being said, I wouldn't have a problem with Uber selling its services as long as they abide by the law, they and their drivers pay the taxes and they don't engage in anti-competitive practices.
They are a zombie firm, existent purely due to the infusions of external, non-business activity derived cash.
Stop the capitalism welfare! Let Uber burn itself to the ground!
They may cause great havoc on their way down. Some jurisdictions are anticipating this and banning Uber preemptively.
This is rational. Let Uber prove that it's viable on someone else's turf. If it does so, then great, the laws can be changed and Uber can be admitted into the market later. If it turns out to be a total disaster then these jurisdictions have saved themselves a lot of trouble.