Hacker News Reader

Comment by dpatru | Hacker News Reader

Market economics is the aggregate of the deals that people make when they are not coerced. It's what results when both drivers and passengers are free to choose their best options. Regulation that disrupts this, by preventing drivers from offering services (through a medalion system) or prevents passengers from paying for services (by capping fares) make people worse off than they otherwise would be.

View on HN

You're willfully ignoring the positive parts of the regulations, like proper insurance and licensing requirements. And even those you listed have both positive and negative sides. It might be difficult to hail a taxi, but I do know that once I do, I can expect to pay the capped fare to go wherever I want to (common-carrier regulations mean they can't refuse you a trip within some bounds). I fail to see how the alternative, which would be flat-out refusal of service or drastically increased pricing to go to unpopular places, improves anyone's life.

Not when two competitors are spending their money to actively make the other competitor's service worse.

Then everybody is worse off. It's a negative spiral that either ends in a monopoly or a stalemate with money being wasted on holding off the other party's attacks.

(assuming that Lyft is engaging in dirty tactics as well, but the argument works similar if it's one-sided)

It's what results when there is no incentive for people to know what their best options are.

Regulation is to come to terms with drivers being dishonest about pricing to rip people off, and concerns about sexual advances on drunk passengers.

Any one who argues against it should at least be prepared to have an answer to these problems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com