Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Economics, there are numerous rules, the most famous being Supply and Demand. But it seems there is one that "If you can't protect your market, you'll never make any money." Industrial sales is often divided into territories, and salesmen can make a good Irving. Multilevel marketing has unlimited territory and members are encouraged to recruit competitors; the result few even make minimum wage. Taxi drivers in the 60's could make decent money as the number of cabs was limited and required inspection, drivers needed background check. Now Ãœber drivers complain they can't make enough. Many other examples. What law covers this?
Law of middle men and commission agents. (FB, Airbnb, Uber, Google, Amazon etc) .
In Economics, there are numerous rules, the most famous being Supply and Demand. But it seems there is one that "If you can't protect your market, you'll never make any money." Industrial sales is often divided into territories, and salesmen can make a good Irving. Multilevel marketing has unlimited territory and members are encouraged to recruit competitors; the result few even make minimum wage. Taxi drivers in the 60's could make decent money as the number of cabs was limited and required inspection, drivers needed background check. Now Ãœber drivers complain they can't make enough. Many other examples. What law covers this?
Price competition is good for the economy. Otherwise business owners can just charge as much as they want for some very basic necessities.
No one market should be protected from competition. That means there is monopoly, or oligopoly. That is no good.
World economy be better if wealth more evenly distributed as opposed to top 10% having 90% of all assets. That which can only happen with there is so much protection.
Disagree. If you have a product that has very limited appeal, lack of competition is not a great advantage.
Is more competition for a product of limited appeal a greater advantage than no competition for the same product? I would think for this limited appeal product, lack of competition might be the only advantage possible.
so if it has little demand, yet there are several providers, how is that not a disadvantage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1insider
Is more competition for a product of limited appeal a greater advantage than no competition for the same product? I would think for this limited appeal product, lack of competition might be the only advantage possible.
The post I was replying to said “there is no greater advantage.” I would rather have a very desirable product and moderate competition than a product nobody wants and zero competition. Many firms value competitors because they understand that they make them more efficient at what they do. Without them, they would not have the same pressure to innovate. The most impressive firms have competition. Realistically nobody can expect to not have competition indefinitely without some sort of government mandate.
In Economics, there are numerous rules, the most famous being Supply and Demand. But it seems there is one that "If you can't protect your market, you'll never make any money." Industrial sales is often divided into territories, and salesmen can make a good Irving. Multilevel marketing has unlimited territory and members are encouraged to recruit competitors; the result few even make minimum wage. Taxi drivers in the 60's could make decent money as the number of cabs was limited and required inspection, drivers needed background check. Now Ãœber drivers complain they can't make enough. Many other examples. What law covers this?
It's called the Law of Stupidity.
Who uses taxis?
Excluding New York City, Chicago and San Fransisco where people actually live in the down-town area, who lives in in the inner-city?
The elderly. The welfare class. The working class poor.
Those people do not have computers and if they do, they don't really do internet. Those people do have Obama-phones and such, but internet on an Obama-phone eats up all your air-time and leaves you with no minutes. The ones without an Obama-phone aren't exactly high-tech and don't use their phones for the internet.
So, how would they contact an Uber or Lyft driver?
I don't like to take my guitar out in the rain, so I sometimes use taxis, but Uber and Lyft are not cheaper, so why should I use them? And, why would I wait 20 minutes for an Uber or Lyft driver when there are dozens of taxis 3 minutes away from me?
The number of people who use taxis is flat and unchanging. Once the market is saturated, there's no future growth ever. So, if 3% of the population uses taxis and the population is 300 Million then when the population is 320 Million 3% of the population still uses taxes. It never changes.
So, how stupid are Uber and Lyft drivers?
Pretty damn stupid.
And, if you can't protect your market, then you're doing something wrong. Markets don't need protecting. If you cannot compete, then you need to find something else to do where you can compete.
Excluding New York City, Chicago and San Fransisco where people actually live in the down-town area, who lives in in the inner-city?
The elderly. The welfare class. The working class poor.
Those people do not have computers and if they do, they don't really do internet. Those people do have Obama-phones and such, but internet on an Obama-phone eats up all your air-time and leaves you with no minutes. The ones without an Obama-phone aren't exactly high-tech and don't use their phones for the internet.
So, how would they contact an Uber or Lyft driver?
I don't like to take my guitar out in the rain, so I sometimes use taxis, but Uber and Lyft are not cheaper, so why should I use them? And, why would I wait 20 minutes for an Uber or Lyft driver when there are dozens of taxis 3 minutes away from me?
The number of people who use taxis is flat and unchanging. Once the market is saturated, there's no future growth ever. So, if 3% of the population uses taxis and the population is 300 Million then when the population is 320 Million 3% of the population still uses taxes. It never changes.
So, how stupid are Uber and Lyft drivers?
Pretty damn stupid.
And, if you can't protect your market, then you're doing something wrong. Markets don't need protecting. If you cannot compete, then you need to find something else to do where you can compete.
Uber, Airbnb dont care because its not their cars or homes anyway.
And for Google and FB we care, because its our personal data. Everything is ours to loose.
And I always tell, Free market is not free, if there is only 1 provider. In 30 or 40 years, you will have only 1 mega company in every sphere ( What FAANG is doing now) through M&A's and buyouts. In your words, the "American prosperity plan".
Excluding New York City, Chicago and San Fransisco where people actually live in the down-town area, who lives in in the inner-city?
The elderly. The welfare class. The working class poor.
Those people do not have computers and if they do, they don't really do internet. Those people do have Obama-phones and such, but internet on an Obama-phone eats up all your air-time and leaves you with no minutes. The ones without an Obama-phone aren't exactly high-tech and don't use their phones for the internet.
So, how would they contact an Uber or Lyft driver?
I don't like to take my guitar out in the rain, so I sometimes use taxis, but Uber and Lyft are not cheaper, so why should I use them? And, why would I wait 20 minutes for an Uber or Lyft driver when there are dozens of taxis 3 minutes away from me?
The number of people who use taxis is flat and unchanging. Once the market is saturated, there's no future growth ever. So, if 3% of the population uses taxis and the population is 300 Million then when the population is 320 Million 3% of the population still uses taxes. It never changes.
So, how stupid are Uber and Lyft drivers?
Pretty damn stupid.
And, if you can't protect your market, then you're doing something wrong. Markets don't need protecting. If you cannot compete, then you need to find something else to do where you can compete.
What the hell did I just read?
There are so many factual inaccuracies here I don’t even know where to start.
I guess I will begin from the backseat of the Lyft I just got in at the Denver airport. It costs me half of what a taxi does, and as long as I’m gone more than a couple days, it’s also cheaper than parking my car at the airport.
Ridership numbers for ride share companies far exceed taxis. It’s not even close. They grew the market, it wasn’t just stealing market share from cabs. I never took taxis before. I use Lyft and Uber all the time.
I’m not even sure what the Obama phone thing means. Most people only keep cell phones for a couple years so whatever point you were trying to make there probably doesn’t hold any water.
If you really want to understand the market, both Harvard Business School and Wharton have done a number of case studies on how disruptive ride sharing has been to transportation.
Last edited by SkyDog77; 09-12-2019 at 07:43 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
