This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

From London To Madrid To Berlin: Europe's Cab Drivers Stage Uber Protest

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Perhaps the 'disruptive' taxi company's name refers to its valuation more than its 'worth' as Uber's dramatic expansion plans to take over the world are hitting a rather large snag in Europe. As WSJ reports, taxi drivers planned to turn a handful of European city centers into giant parking lots Wednesday, protesting the mobile car-hailing service. Uber has been subjected to scrutiny elsewhere, including the U.S. and Canada. But the hurdles have been higher in Europe, where taxi drivers tend to be well organized. The industry is often more heavily regulated, and governments are more willing to actively protect sectors under threat of job losses. Across Europe, as the map below shows, Uber is facing a series of legal challenges; which makes, as NYU valuation guru Aswath Damodaran confirms means the $18 billion number "is likely wishful thinking."

 

As The Wall Street Journal reports,

The demonstrations highlight some challenges facing Uber and its peers as they race to increase revenue and woo investors.

 

But the scale of the planned protests across Europe also underscores the extent to which the technology has upended one of the world's most regulated industries.

 

Uber is facing a series of legal challenges, including a potential decision by a London court about whether the company's app constitutes a cab meter. A U.K. regulator has deemed Uber legal, but the service could be hampered if a court rules otherwise. In Brussels and Berlin, Uber is facing court rulings that have effectively barred the service.

 

...

 

Uber executives have embraced the protests as a chance to show how useful the service is. "If anything, it's going to make Uber even more visible, and make a lot of people realize that they now have choices that they didn't have before," said Pierre-Dimitri Gore-Coty, Uber's general manager of Western and Northern Europe.

And here is Damodaran explaining his $6 billion valuation... (via qz)

Damodaran starts with three key assumptions: That the global taxi market is roughly a $100 billion a year business, that Uber can gain 10% of that market, and that it will be able to continue keeping 20% of customer payments, as it does now (the rest goes to the driver). But he helpfully gives us this matrix to see what would happen if you kept that 20% of gross receipts constant but increased the market size, or Uber’s share of it:

Basically, to get to $17 billion or more (the yellow boxes above), you need to believe either that the market for car services is much bigger than Damodaran’s estimate, or that Uber will be able to capture far more than 10% of it, or a mix of both. These are tricky propositions, especially considering the wealth of competition (both old-school taxis and newer competitors like Lyft). And assuming that Uber can hold on to 20% of gross receipts may be generous, too, since regulation could increase its costs, or competition could oblige it to pay its drivers a bigger cut.

What could go wrong?

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:05 | 4844314 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

“While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit from such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting the case. And it will finally either convince the general public that the case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.” – Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson - Page one, 1946.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:36 | 4844464 Vampyroteuthis ...
Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

When they are out in the streets, I hope the middle eastern drivers shower ahead of time. Who are we kidding, they won't and that will make a smelly scene!

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:45 | 4844530 Haus-Targaryen
Haus-Targaryen's picture

I hate the cabbies here in FFM. 

When you are in their way, they have no problem lighting up the horn, their middle finger, flashing their highbeams, or driving ,33 meters behind you at 110 kph.  If they are in your way, they either ignore you, or give you a look like "tough shit, its my job, deal with it." 

This in conjunction with them driving like assclowns constantly, I would be quite happy for Über to wipe them out.  Assholes.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:49 | 4844551 Gavrikon
Gavrikon's picture

Also the drivers from Offenbach.  And Mosbach.  Complete assholes!

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:59 | 4844593 Haus-Targaryen
Haus-Targaryen's picture

lol @ the Offenbach comment. 

You have one of three drivers from there;

1) Slightly used 80.000€ car with red license plates (aka I am too poor to buy one myself, but I work for a dealer somewhere and am driving around a lease trade-in.  Look how rich I am everyone, now GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY WAY). 

2) 12 year old Opel Corsica.  Its completely rusted out, white smoke when stopping, blue smoke when accelerating, likely has 400000 kms on the tach, and never sees north of 60 kph, even on the Autobahn.  Likely keeps passing the TüV due to payment in sex favors, cocaine, booze, or a combination of the above.  Expect the person driving this not to speak any German.   

3) 2000 BMW 316i.  Sure its the slowest BMW BMW has built since the Isetta, but that won't stop them from putting M wheels, M stickers, and fake M bumpers on the car.  These people likely drive cabbies for the day job, as their antics are the same.  Normally owned by ... erhm .... low class immigrants from around the Med, and love to slow down, honk, and shot out the women I am dating as we walk around.  I would glady deport these assclowns naked to the Taliban if given the opportunity.

 

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:02 | 4844950 45Condor
45Condor's picture

Everyone likes to take a taxi that is in good condition. Here in France - well, my little part of it - I step with trepidation into the gleaming BMWs or Mercedes that are most frequently used to run a taxi business; for my first thought is: 'How in the world can this driver - often pleading poverty - afford such a car... especially when the license fee to drive a taxi is in the upper 10's of thousands of Euros.

Of course, if one combines these two thoughts together, and it's no wonder that I pay one of the highest fees in Europe to use a bloody taxi.

Sure, I don't want to be sat in rust-bucket that comes with a complimentary clear-bottom view that shows me the passing tarmac, but fares would be far more acceptable if the monopoly on taxi licenses was crushed here in France. (Does anyone remember the sulks from the taxi drivers the last time the French Government tried to open up the racket to fair competition?)

And I don't need a luxury car to get me from A to B. A standard Renault or Peugeot will suffice. (If a taxi driver wants to go on holiday in a 60k vehicle, they can buy themselves a family car for such a task... without writing off the VAT on a business expense!)

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:50 | 4844552 Stackers
Stackers's picture

Dont mess with my government enforced monoply !

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:42 | 4844510 XitSam
XitSam's picture

"Save the buggy whip makers from the foul stench of gasoline automobiles!"

"Protect the steam engine firemen from the scourge of diesel electric behemoths!"

Thu, 06/12/2014 - 15:23 | 4849775 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Although to be honest we've lost a ton of energy efficiency from heat recycling from no longer using what we learned about engineering steam-engines.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:00 | 4844271 LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Not invested in Uber, but I do see some potential for expanded market.  I suspect it appeals mostly to young people who may not be traditional cab customers in smaller cities, meaning Uber may create its own market.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 09:59 | 4844273 Capitalist
Capitalist's picture

Uber is partially-owned by Google. It's only a matter of time before they pair Uber with Google's driverless car and instead of 20% going to Uber, 100% goes to Uber because there are no drivers.

What's the valuation then?

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:09 | 4844335 NoPantsSpongeBob
NoPantsSpongeBob's picture

Good luck getting customers in those driverless cars.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:25 | 4844408 WhyDoesItHurtWh...
WhyDoesItHurtWhen iPee's picture

I'm thinking that someone will create a free app and the driver will keep all the money.  A kind of crypto-taxi.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:11 | 4844996 zaphod
zaphod's picture

Exactly, the reason for Uber's high valuation is they are receiving a very large reward (20%) for doing what is really very little work (basic website and rating/comment tracking). It is possible to implement Uber's funcationality for much much less than it's current valuation, which means many others will come along and drop that 20% down. 

Of course that is until Uber turns and plays the regulatory capture game as well to block the next set of little guys. 

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:41 | 4844499 Der Wille Zur Macht
Der Wille Zur Macht's picture

I mean, I've always wanted to bang in the back of a taxicab. No driver makes it THAT much more realizable! 

Thu, 06/12/2014 - 15:13 | 4849732 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Ya. Can't see why I'd want a driverless car when I could have a train or bus.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:10 | 4844344 the_cannibal_animal
the_cannibal_animal's picture

We're at least ten years out from driverless tech really being viable.  That's ten years of expensive legal challenges, competition from Lyft and other competitors, PR blowback, and then the enormous cost of rolling out an entirely new fleet of cars.  There will be a company that rolls out a really fantastic driverless car network and makes a fortune off of it, but that company will not be Uber.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:21 | 4844389 Capitalist
Capitalist's picture

Meh soooner than you think: http://youtu.be/bDOnn0-4Nq8

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:47 | 4844536 WhyDoesItHurtWh...
WhyDoesItHurtWhen iPee's picture

You think they will take SNAP or EBT ?

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 13:21 | 4845306 the_cannibal_animal
the_cannibal_animal's picture

They're in alpha stage at best.  We'll be waiting on a legal and insurance apparatus as well as a social acceptance for years.  Besides, hundreds of millions of non-autonomous cars will have to be pulled from circulation.  It will be a slower process than SV thinks it will be.  Shit, do you know that this country's adult population only has a 60% smartphone adoption rate?  We still use freaking incandescents in this country when LEDs are superior in every way.  Ten years before widespread adoption is extraordinarily optimistic.

Thu, 06/12/2014 - 15:11 | 4849723 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Actually LED's are dangerous & inferior for enclosed fixtures, a severe fire hazard, and for being as hot as they are I prefer not to use them. I also prefer a soft light not bright & harsh except for a flash light.
I use incandescents because they are the best, cheapest & easiest to recycle. LED's & CFL's are near impossible to recycle.

I also don't use a smartphone. They're not smart, they're garbage.

I don't like touch screens. I don't want everything made teeny-tiny on my screen. I don't need / use apps. When I need computer power I use an actual computer. When I'm using a phone I'm good with text, dialing & calendar/alarms. That's it.

Give it SD card or USB cable to toss in however many GB of storage one can fit into the casing, that's good with me too, but again it's for a computer, not interfacing on the phone itself.

Those phones can't churn through spreadsheets fast enough to be useful for me.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 09:59 | 4844275 morph
morph's picture

How is 20% of 10% of of a $100BN market $5BN?

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:38 | 4844477 Vampyroteuthis ...
Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

How is 20% of 10% of of a $100BN market $5BN?

Federal Reserve math?

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:09 | 4844278 philipat
philipat's picture

Using a regular London Taxi from Heathrow to a Central London Hotel now costs about GBP 100, USD 170. What could possibly go wrong with that model???

 

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:53 | 4844572 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

the fastest way to go from Heathrow to Central London is by train. the cheapest, by tube. by taxi is neither. just saying

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 11:02 | 4844614 philipat
philipat's picture

You seem to miss the point? I know that there are are alternative modes of transport, however, if I CHOOSE to sit in a PRIVATE vehicle all the way from the airport to the hotel, in a free market, I should also have choices??

And, incidentally, those alternative choices are also very expensive in The UK compared to ALL other countries in the world? I wonder why that would be?

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:24 | 4845059 RyeWhiskey
RyeWhiskey's picture

Yeah but uber is more expensive. Not to mention lacking commercial passenger insurance.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:04 | 4844310 Calculus99
Calculus99's picture

Wait till the masses start to learn about P2P Lending/borrowing.

I have $10,000 in savings, getting say 1%

You need a loan of $10,000, your credit rating is good.Your bank might charge 10%+

Let's do a deal at say 6%. The P2P company takes say 50-100 BP

What actually happens is that the saver doesn't lend to one person, he actually lends to 20+ so as to reduce the risk ($500 each). Plus, the P2P lending company holds a reserve for bad debts.

Would you lend to a bunch of pepole with excellent credit scores? I would, and am already doing it via www.ratesetter.co.uk

Folks, this is the way to fuck the too-big-to-fail banks, people power!

 

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:14 | 4844360 philipat
philipat's picture

And Bitcoin. Which has other advantages also...

Thu, 06/12/2014 - 15:04 | 4849626 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

What good will that do the masses when they realize p2p relies on a grid that will go down and the loans are in dollars that aren't real money, and won't even be legal tender for much longer?
Hyperinflation's a bitch.

I've got .9999 fine gold & silver, not dollars in a savings account. If you don't hold it, you don't own it & IOU notes from a central bank are only a promise to pay.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:07 | 4844320 NoPantsSpongeBob
NoPantsSpongeBob's picture

Uber is like a less expensive alternative to limo/town-car service which annual revenues at least in the US are much lower, I don't believe that the revenues would be any higher in other countries.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:07 | 4844326 Darkman17
Darkman17's picture

Uber is awesome and one of many companies which are figuring out how to better use existing resources. I don't get this ZH anti uber crap given that this is a site where people discuss the need for a more distributed economy. Each uber driver is a independent small business which leverages a service for matching people. It's almost impossible to corrupt uber since people would easily move to Lift, sidecar, etc... I think it's a big step in the right direction and government/airports and taxi companies which stand to lose will do everything to protect themselves in a desperate attempt to lose all their significance. Most taxi drivers have switched to uber in SF and will probably do so in other cities.

Sure may be overvalued like every other tech company but since it's not public it's really just marketing which seems to be working since there are ZH articles written about it.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:12 | 4844352 philipat
philipat's picture

"Sure may be overvalued like every other tech company but since it's not public"

Um.........

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:18 | 4844379 the_cannibal_animal
the_cannibal_animal's picture

It's because Uber is run by a frat star mega-douche that criticizes regular taxi drivers for not being competitive when one of the highlights of Uber's strategy is to break the laws that other taxi drivers have to follow.  When you win a fight against a guy with one hand tied behind his back and then do your victory dance after the fact and insult your opponent, you end up looking like a douche.  Shocker, I know.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:32 | 4844446 Darkman17
Darkman17's picture

And how much is it for me as an individual to get a medallion and DOT permit so I can service SFO? How much is a lease for a taxi per day? Breaking which laws? The same laws that protect the taxi companies by making it hard to enter the industry... Very surprised to see this one on ZH, it's like the desire to see the world fail is the main reason people don't like uber, or tesla, or airbnb etc... It's like seeing an article that Lending Club is bad because they break the laws by allowing non rich people to be bankers and are hurting poor Wells Fargo and BOFA. Or that organic farms are bad because they hurt monsantos profits by using seeds which are not patented. Come on guys don't tell me a douche CEO is the difference between good and bad economics.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:40 | 4844482 gjp
gjp's picture

Well argued Darkman, the taxis are an entrenched monopoly and an overpriced one, and the airports are worst of all.  Breaking this up is not a bad thing.  Of course, Uber, and so many other Internet models (airbnb too) are trying to become network effect de facto monoplolies too, and Sandhill Road / Wall Street are valuing everything based on their potential to extract a massive monopoly middleman pound of flesh.  This reality in combination with their sanctimonious douchiness about the old model is what is hard to swallow I think.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:41 | 4845129 Zerozen
Zerozen's picture

I wouldn't bash the concept of creating a new taxi paradigm per se, but to me Uber is still questionable:

1. The competition is not just Lyft and other apps. It's me picking up my phone and calling the local cab company. Seriously, what is Uber's value proposition vs. calling a cab? That I have a little app that lets me watch my ride getting closer? This is worth $18 billion? Where I live cabs are pretty cheap and Uber/Uber-X isn't really any cheaper so what's the point here? Maybe there are more cities where taxis are overpriced than I thought.

2. Speaking of Uber-X...how is this really any different than hitchhiking, in principle? It's hitchhiking with an app, and you can pay with cash rather than ass or grass ("ass, grass, or cash, nobody rides for free"). There are drunk chicks calling strangers for rides home on UberX at 2 in the morning after partying all night...this doesn't strike anyone as trouble waiting to happen?

3. Uber limo service...again, I don't get it. Pay too much money for the privilege of having a guy in an SUV drive you from A to B.

As someone above said, Uber is making money by breaking laws that the competition has to comply with.

Thu, 06/12/2014 - 14:29 | 4849541 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I think the point is if you see the cab for you isn't arriving you know you can call someone else.
Given that's all the incentive they need to keep on time & stresses other cabbies who fuck around and don't show up and make you call 3 at a time to get ONE, maybe in 25 minutes - that will freak them the fuck out.

That's what I want.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:58 | 4845204 RyeWhiskey
RyeWhiskey's picture

Believing mass media paid Uber propaganda much, I see.

Who's the oligarchy here - thousands of taxicab small business corporations or an offshore-based private corporation with $17 billion valuation?

Look who is behind this offshore law-breaking entity.

And you will understand why it's pumped the way it is.

NOT unlike Enron pre-IPO.  

Yet hundreds of other apps and websites that operate legally

and offer better technologies are not even mentined .

 

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 13:34 | 4845367 stacking12321
stacking12321's picture

whether it's "pumped" or not is irrelevant.

in a free society, people can make their own choices, instead of choices forced on them by cabbies who don't want competition, and are willing to harrass and annoy others and block traffic illegally in order to get their way. it's like a parent that gives in to a child throwing a temper-tantrum.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 14:51 | 4845687 Orps
Orps's picture

I think you are missing the point of the article.  I believe the intention of the article was to highlight continuing marketplace irrational exuberance and potential over-valuation of yet another tech company.  To be honest, Uber is a great business idea.  I hope it succeeds massively and hope the taxi drivers lose their battles. 

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 14:54 | 4845700 Orps
Orps's picture

I think the point of the article is to question the valuation of the company, not their methods or marketplace rules.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:15 | 4844361 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

...must...bail out...buggy whip manufacturers...!!!!
Sons of bitches! Don't they know how many families depend on this buggy whip factories? Think of the children!!!!

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:40 | 4844488 DogOfSinope
DogOfSinope's picture

Taxi syndicate should STFU. This is just a payback for depriving children of horseshoe makers.

Justice is slow - but certain! ;-)

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:27 | 4845072 RyeWhiskey
RyeWhiskey's picture

Funny how offshore-based tax-evading Uber is considered a savoir.  It will plunder municipal revnue. Sorry - it will "save" all that $$$$ that regulated taxicabs were bringing in to municipal coffers. "Save" it in offshore bank accounts.  Oligarchy rules. Now with an Iphone app.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:21 | 4844395 Tinky
Tinky's picture

Next up: mass protests by traditional hotels as airbnb (an excellent service, btw) further impacts their businesses, with politicians jumping on board due to thinly veiled fears of tax evasion.

Fuck 'em.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 13:08 | 4845239 RyeWhiskey
RyeWhiskey's picture

"Excellent service"? You mean "excellent" like in your condo neighbour next door "gone" AirBnB and now you have a brothel operating 24/7 right on your floor?

http://nypost.com/2014/04/14/hookers-using-airbnb-to-use-apartments-for-sex-sessions/

 

 

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 18:49 | 4846440 Tinky
Tinky's picture

Is the NY Post your usual, reliable source?

More to the point, it is ludicrous to point to small anomalies.

Thu, 06/12/2014 - 14:08 | 4849444 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I would call that very excellent. If you don't, there's something wrong with you.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:27 | 4844415 damicol
damicol's picture

New app comimg soon..

 and car  any driver,  "pick up a mate",

about 50 cents charged to driver, uses same software as glympse and kailo and charges the driver through his cellphne by txt.

 

 Not 20 %.

 

 and anyone can be a taxi  and fees calcuated by  average fees charged in the area during same periods so a tendency to drive prices down.

 What value will that Uber shit be worth then

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:29 | 4844431 philipat
philipat's picture

That's capitalism and free markets. Remember that???

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:51 | 4845162 RyeWhiskey
RyeWhiskey's picture

Then pay for your business permits and your taxes.

If I pay for my license to operate, and I pay all local taxes,

and you don't, and we are in the same exact business - then

this is not a free market, this is a law-breaking tax-evading operation

that competes unethically and unfairly with thousands of law-abiding businesses.

 

Thu, 06/12/2014 - 14:07 | 4849434 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

nope: business permits & taxes are ANTI-freemarket.
A freemarket should have no such thing.

Law should abide to business first, not the other way around.

Every tax should be evaded and then BANISHED. Those taxes are robbery & nothing else.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:29 | 4844433 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

The problem is that government policies have allowed taxi plates to be worth a lot of money. People have also borrowed heavily to buy cabs and the licence attaching to them.

Perhaps a better way out of the mess is to force any person wanting to start up a cab business to pay to the existing cabbie an amount equivalent to half the market value of his cab business.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:36 | 4844466 philipat
philipat's picture

Capitalism includes and involves "Creative destruction" in the interests of efficiency and the "Greater good for all?? Frankly, fuck what governments have done and want if we the people, and technology, are able to see common sense. I feel sorry for taxi drivers in the present system but economic systems adjust. Just not so quickly when the central planners are in control....

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 10:44 | 4844514 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

I agree with creative destruction but can you imagine what happens to a little old lady who might have lent her retirement savings to someone to buy a cab? Totally destroyed. There has to be a middle path as we wade through the swamp of government stuff ups.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:35 | 4845102 RyeWhiskey
RyeWhiskey's picture

Creative destruction and illegal law-breaking operation are not the same. Uber is the latter. It destroys thousands of law-abiding small transportation companies by paying nothing for business permit, nothing for regulatory fees, nothing for local taxes. 

There is a reason that Uber is an offshore-based private corporation. Fraud requires quick and efficient money-laundering.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:48 | 4845157 Zerozen
Zerozen's picture

+1

Uber is not creative desctruction, it doesn't create anything. They didn't invent a better mousetrap. Uber just beats taxi drivers by breaking the laws that taxi drivers are bound by, and the whole operation is served up in a shiny app to make it look ground breaking and "new".

Is no one scratching their heads over how a one-trick pony app to call a cab (zero barriers to entry, legal challenges, and competes against something as basic as picking up a phone and calling a cab) is worth $6 billion, let alone $18 billion?

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 16:42 | 4846060 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Uber definitely created a better mousetrap.
Right now there's no way to book a taxi online & to book as many cabs as are needed.
You get busy phone lines & high prices.
Now you can get no busy phone lines & enough cabs to meet demand.
I've waited 30 minutes in a snowstorm for a cab & given up and hitch-hiked to work.
That's all I need to know. Uber is needed.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 15:08 | 4845750 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Those laws are what should be illegal.
Let's not forget when gold was made illegal.  That being the case everyone should be a criminal because it served only one purpose: make good money illegal so you had to be robbed by the very money you were forced to use.

The taxation & regulation of taxis ARE MONEY LAUNDERING by governments.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 11:11 | 4844685 Kreditanstalt
Kreditanstalt's picture

Haha...the high-price taxi cartel is dependent on government protection.

The people bellow for the state to protect them from the HORRORS of having a free market and CHOICE...

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:31 | 4845087 RyeWhiskey
RyeWhiskey's picture

You got it backwards. Taxi and other regulated industries feed municipal coffers. Uber doesn't pay a penny. So who is feeding who? Uber is based on plunder that results in reduced municipal revenue.

Face higher property taxes then. Uber is a mass fraud masquerading as "technology".  Yet - same exact apps, and better, offered by hundreds of smaller startups are not even mentioned.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 13:10 | 4845259 Kreditanstalt
Kreditanstalt's picture

How about starving the beast?  Why not cut "municipal revenue" AND "municipal spending"?

And...if we end taxi regulation altogether Uber will certainly face competition.  That's the way a free market - if we HAD one - would work. 

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 14:17 | 4845565 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Yes - and how would you pay for the maintenance of the roads and the regulation of taxis to ensure they are safe?

 

You can only get in 1 unsafe taxi before you make your 'free market choice' to not use them again (from your grave)

 

The free market is not sufficient for a civilised society - that's why it worked while we were uncivilised and started dying the day we started to become more civilised (the middle ages - meat market reagulation - before America was even a twinkle in an invading mayflower)

 

...and you think you are progressive? Don't weep for the free market - try to understand why it always attracts it's own demise.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 14:53 | 4845690 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Let those who CAN do the work DO THE WORK. Then they've paid for it by doing it - no tax required.
Let those who WANT it done but can't do it CHOOSE to pay.
Otherwise you're working with no-bid contracts & bid-rigging and paying 10x the market rate for paving, re-paving, starting then stopping a job for a few weeks while moving on to another one, and other nonsense.

The market IS sufficient for civil society which is why society today is so UNCIVIL for having removed those markets.

No free market has ever, ever met its own demise. It always has worked too well, given too little chance for corruption, then finally a dumbfuck gets into government who says the opposite and EVENTUALLY stupid people forget and then say "fuck it, let's try something else".
THEN it's gone.
Never ever has the free market actually killed itself. Ever.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 17:28 | 4846257 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

A lesson for you my friend.

 

In the middle ages - the free market was free - and there were no regulations.

 

There was a problem with meat sellers - they sold meat which was bad - so bad it was killing people - but sadly their free market 'choice to not shop there again' was imposed on them by their deaths.

 

Therefore something had to be done to stop unscrupilous meat sellers poisoning people - and as a result - even in those uncivilised times - the free market was regulated, which as you know caused the market to 'die'

 

Clearly you are not broadly educated enough to understand the history of economics and how we got here - by not having this knowledge it allows you to produce a solution - which is in fact the same flawed solution we just came to the end of.

 

Maybe a little more thinking and readng and a lot less memorising of quotes would assist you.

Sun, 06/15/2014 - 03:02 | 4858069 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Lesson to learn now: people still sell meat that is bad & regulators still let it happen as easily as when there are no regulators at all.
Go ask Maple Leaf about Listeria.
Go ask people about e.coli in their lettuce.
It happens regardless.
What makes a free market work is having customers be informed. It was just the other day I got "Selection" brand "cheese".
It passed all muster with regulators.
It wasn't passable to me. It didn't taste right, had a chemical colour & taste.
I stopped eating it. Other cheese I bought before it which does taste right stayed fine while that cheese actually went all moldy right in the fridge.
Think the regulators will fix that? Never.
They are unaccountable. What will fix it is I'll never buy that brand again and I am showing them and you how the free market works. Customers adapt & markets dump products & producers/sellers who have nothing of value to sell, like tainted meat.

And NOW because of "market regulators" the meat market is dying a new death. Yes, it is.

People are realizing corn-fed beef & GMO-crops used as feed to animals we eat is poison, not to mention the antibiotics force-fed to these animals which then causes immune disorders in us humans such as artificially inducing immunity to antibiotics for the normal bacterial we should be able to kill off with no medicine at all, leaving us more vulnerable than ever.

Unless... you're not a sheeple. You go ask Meat trapper (here on zh) what his solution. If you didn't figure it out, he knows how to get meat that isn't pumped up with GMO-crop-feed and with antibiotics and he doesn't pay a dime for the meat. He knows what's what, as does any deer-hunter.

You hunt/trap, you don't buy the meat at the store. Long-term solution to this meat-market poison-is-now-food as per "regulators" bullshit.

You're fool enough to believe a temporary change is a permanent improvement, all the moar "this time things are different!" sheeple hopium.

Surprise.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 14:49 | 4845680 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

From where I'm looking it's the property tax that's a fraud.
No reason that should go up with taxi service down, they shouldn't be connected.
On top of that, property tax is the immoral theft a home "owner" is forced to pay "rent" forever on.
If you have to keep paying rent you don't really own it, dumbass.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 11:45 | 4844864 crzyhun
crzyhun's picture

Euro-skloratic-socialism!

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:13 | 4845008 ElixirMixer
ElixirMixer's picture

I'm sure a lot of cities benefit from UberX, but I live in Chicago and we do not need any more taxis. Traffic is terrible as is and having a bunch of unemployed "independent contractors" making effectively less than minimum wage clogging up the streets sounds like a pretty shitty future.

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 12:56 | 4845189 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Actually I am willing to believe the services can expand. As people become too poor to afford owning or renting a car they'll be able to afford to "rent" it by the minute/mile - which is paying a cab driver - and will have no choice when there's no bus service along a certain path and/or time of day.

It will work until it won't and the only 2 reasons it won't are:

#1 owning a car becomes very cheap long-term including gas, insurance, tickets (ya, right)

#2 everyone becomes so poor they can afford only a stolen bike

Wed, 06/11/2014 - 22:46 | 4847266 navy62802
navy62802's picture

I'm not necessarily a fan of Uber, but this shit is hilarious. Someone comes along and exposes the fleecing that has been perpetrated by this particular industry, and the leeches turn to their mob-run unions. You can't make the shit up.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!