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.
I found this comment attached to one of the stories:
Eventually I think algorithms and software will be developed to allow choreographing of driver routes and rider requests to optimize efficiency and wait times. So if a driver is taking rider x from 40th street to 20th street, and rider y requests a ride from 30th to 20th, the driver can stop and pick up the 2nd rider. This is exactly the kind of thing computers are great at. This will render mass transit obsolete, or at least relegated to specialized use.
Environmentalists should love it ('should' being the key word). It would greatly reduce single-occupancy vehicles, make it possible for many to give up on private car ownership, do away with all the buses running around w/ only 2 or 3 passengers etc. Pub. sector unions won't like it, though.
Do you have any idea how many people commute by mass transit each day in Seattle? This will not hurt mass transit or the cab industry, but the cab industry will continue to fight against any form of competition.
Actually you would be surprised how much the taxi companies that have the medallions are pressuring cities that do this to not expand the number of medallions. We just had an issue here in New York where the cab companies were fighting it hard to prevent any expansion of them because it would mean more competition and would lower the value of the current medallions. This is again, private industry pressuring control on the public.
I'm not in the least surprised. That's how corporatism, crony capitalism, fascism, or whatever label we wish to use, works.
It is "private industry" in name only. They depend on the government to restrict the number of medallions and thus reduce competition. No doubt people in government are getting something back to keep this system going. So it's more of a public-private partnership. It is "private industry" and government acting in concert.
I'm not in the least surprised. That's how corporatism, crony capitalism, fascism, or whatever label we wish to use, works.
It is "private industry" in name only. They depend on the government to restrict the number of medallions and thus reduce competition. No doubt people in government are getting something back to keep this system going. So it's more of a public-private partnership. It is "private industry" and government acting in concert.
Actually that is the point of all private industry, people think capitalism will lead to a utopia, but in reality it would just lead to monopolies.
Actually that is the point of all private industry, people think capitalism will lead to a utopia, but in reality it would just lead to monopolies.
Under our system, yes it is. But that's only because we have dumped overboard the concept of limited government. When government has such power, naturally corporations will try to tap into it to benefit themselves and harm their competitors. In fact they have to, or their competitors will use the tactic to destroy them.
For example, if government did not have the power to restrict medallions, there would be no point in a taxi company lobbying them to do so.
Under our system, yes it is. But that's only because we have dumped overboard the concept of limited government. When government has such power, naturally corporations will try to tap into it to benefit themselves and harm their competitors. In fact they have to, or their competitors will use the tactic to destroy them.
For example, if government did not have the power to restrict medallions, there would be no point in a taxi company lobbying them to do so.
Actually if there wasn't the restriction of medallions, there would be one cab company that just bought out all of its competition and began strongarming any competition that tried to start up.
Taxi drivers rallied outside city hall to protest against the three ride share services now operating in Seattle. The new services use software and phones to connect driver and rider. The taxi drivers do have a point. Taxis must have a license currently valued at $360,000--the city has not issued new licenses for over 20 years. Taxis also undergo city inspections that result in frequent fines, and even sting operations to catch them in violations. The ride shares circumvent all that. What they do is technically illegal--in fact a misdemeanor criminal violation--but so far the law is not being enforced.
The new services are liked by customers. Even the local afternoon lib shock jock is complaining about taxi drivers who don't bathe, while a loony left city councilwoman gushes about the innovative nature of the new services. Like so many other internet-based services, there is a feedback system whereby customers can rate drivers. All in all, it's an unexpected breakdown of the normal crony capitalist, restricted market model that is normally inviolate in socialist Seattle.
The obvious question is why does the city of Seattle restrict taxi licences to the point that they are now "valued" at $360k? This hurts the residents of the city. By artificially restricting supply, without a corresponding decrease in demand, prices for taxi services go up, dramatically. Residents (and visitors) pay rates far outside what the service provided justifies. This situation is ONLY the result of a government-mandated and enforced monopoly on the licensing process. This situation isn't unique to Seattle, it is common in many metro areas. NYC is famous for it's outrageous taxi costs and license costs.
Why? I don't know...but like most things, I expect following the money will lead to the source of the issue. Just who in the city management is involved with the taxi companies, and who is getting kickbacks? I mean, who cares about the poor people that can't afford these idiotic rates? Who cares about all the potential taxi businesses that are suppressed due to lack of licenses, and the lousy service that such a monopoly allows. In a free market, companies that supply a poor service at an inflated price cease to exist. When the government grants them monopoly status, they are rewarded. Not only are potential taxi companies and customers hurt financially, every other business who's customers utilize that service is hurt.
I suspect city officials will be quick to crack down on these "ride share" services, or find a way to charge them. The greed of elected officials in metro areas is unbridled.
Actually if there wasn't the restriction of medallions, there would be one cab company that just bought out all of its competition and began strongarming any competition that tried to start up.
That's why you have laws to prohibit the use of force or fraud ('strongarming'). So when Megacab co. firebombs the startup competitor, they are taken to court and sent to jail. That's what I mean by limited gov't. The gov't should be there to stop force or fraud, but not to prohibit a voluntary transaction between a driver and a rider buy requiring that the driver buy a $360,000 medallion.
I was going to say the same thing but I'm a day late and a dollar short.
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.
