
Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages - pathy
http://www.digitalmcgyver.com/professional/digital-pr/uber-stockholm-throw-a-pr-tantrum-when-refused-unfair-advantages/
======
scbrg
Reading their press release (the Swedish one, I'm a native Swedish speaker) I
get a feeling that they are, quite frankly, not a serious business. It's
filled with paranoid tinfoil hattery where they claim the Big Nasty Government
is out to get them without actually pointing out what rules they're asked to
comply with.

Sweden is fairly big on consumer protection, and price comparisons is
generally a mandatory part of that (all groceries are mandated to list price
per weight/volume/appropriate other unit so you can find out, say, which bag
of rice is cheapest per kg, for instance - the same goes for taxi services and
price per km). That they're being asked to follow those rules is hardly
government bullying - in the eyes of most everyone here that definitely counts
as "consumer protection".

It doesn't get better when they start spouting complete lies - the gibberish
about certain unmarked taxi like services being exclusive to "royal families
or prominent business leaders". Not related to reality at all.

To be honest, I'd never heard of this story before I saw it here. It certainly
hasn't been covered by mainstream press. I don't live in Stockholm though, so
it might be bigger there.

~~~
dzlobin
>all groceries are mandated to list price per weight/volume/appropriate other
unit so you can find out, say, which bag of rice is cheapest per kg, for
instance - the same goes for taxi services and price per km

That's actually really interesting and I had no idea that was the case. In a
supermarket, would such a list be in the isle next to the food? Or would it
just be available from management or something like that?

~~~
kybernetyk
I don't know about Sweden but here in Germany it's on the price labels that
are attached to the shelves.

You have a price per unit. Say a 0.5l bottle of beer costs 0.78 EUR and then
you have the price per 100ml or 1l below it (1l = 1.56 EUR). It's marginally
useful if you compare the price of rice to the price of Coca Cola but it's
really useful if you want to know what's cheaper: Buying a package of 6 1.5l
bottles of Coke or buying a crate with 18 0.33l bottles.

I'm a sucker for saving pennies ;)

~~~
mikeash
We do this in the US. However, not being standardized on the metric system, it
can end up being pretty useless. It's _usually_ good, but every so often you
come across something like:

    
    
        Item A: $3, $6/pound
        Item B: $4, $0.30/oz
    

Which defeats the whole purpose of the per-unit price. Occasionally drives me
bonkers.

------
onemorepassword
The more I hear about Uber, the more it seems to be a tea-party style paranoid
right-wing anti big evil government organization instead of a disruptive
start-up.

This kind of thing might fly in the US, but in most of Western Europe we take
a slightly more nuanced view to the role of government regulation.

Doesn't mean there isn't anything worth disrupting, hell no (somebody _please_
disrupt the Amsterdam taxi market), but in cultures where simply sitting down
and figuring out how to remove the obstacles is the custom, hyperbolic scream
fests by an American company is not going to work.

Especially not an American company that thinks it's a good idea to conquer
Europe with a name like _"Uber"_...

Both the company name and their PR strategy scream "culturally insensitive
American douchebags".

~~~
pg
Far from it. Uber is a remarkably professionally run company that has
transformed transportation in the US cities where it operates.

I'm surprised (or more precisely, dismayed) that a comment with such comically
excessive language received so many upvotes. This is how a forum turns into a
self-caricature.

~~~
cobrausn
It seems purpose built to garner upvotes from many of those who frequent HN -
insults the American right wing while praising European level-headedness and
rationalism. Add in a final parting shot at American stereotypes and I'm not
surprised at all I found it at the top.

------
Indyan
They did the same thing in USA. Here's a series of articles penned by Paul
Carr documenting what Uber did in the US.

<http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/31/assholes-shrug/>

[http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-
or...](http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/17/whos-the-real-bully-uber-or-new-york/)
[written by Nathaniel]

<http://pandodaily.com/2012/10/24/travis-shrugged/>

[http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/02/a-final-word-on-uber-and-
th...](http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/02/a-final-word-on-uber-and-their-
ghastly-attempt-to-spin-their-way-to-sainthood/)

[http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/04/shock-uber-scores-
victory-a...](http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/04/shock-uber-scores-victory-
against-dc-lawmakers-by-actually-negotiating-with-dc-lawmakers/)

[http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/13/what-a-difference-six-
month...](http://pandodaily.com/2012/12/13/what-a-difference-six-months-can-
make-the-consistent-and-in-no-way-disingenuous-messaging-of-travis-kalanick/)

~~~
viggity
regarding the first link, in which Uber jumped fares during Hurricane Sandy -
People who think price gouging have obviously never given the consequences
more than a moments thought. He even mentioned that Uber reported the supply
of drivers went up 50%. Isn't that a major, important factor. The author just
blows it off and calls the Uber evil. fuck that. I'd rather know that a
service is going to be available, but at a higher price than to not have the
service available at all. Supply and demand is economic law, bitches.

Price "gouging" is actually a public service, it __LITERALLY SAVES LIVES __.
It ensures that needed materials find their way to the people that need them
the most. If I'm reasonably well stocked on batteries, and a business isn't
allowed to raise prices during a hurricane, I have no dis-incentive from
clearing off the shelf and buying all of them. However if the prices get
jacked up, I won't buy them if I don't need them. It also provides an
incentive and encourages people to be well prepared.

[http://mises.org/daily/1593/Price-Gouging-Saves-Lives-in-
a-H...](http://mises.org/daily/1593/Price-Gouging-Saves-Lives-in-a-Hurricane)

~~~
untog
_Price "gouging" is actually a public service, it LITERALLY SAVES LIVES. It
ensures that needed materials find their way to the people that need them the
most._

Seriously? The lower income people living on Staten Island during Sandy would
like a word with you. Price gouging ensures that things are only available to
people with excess income to absorb the gouged price.

The whole point about price gouging during Sandy is that it was an exceptional
event, and maybe not one we should leave to market forces. If every grocery
store tripled the price of bottled water and essential supplies then many
people would be unable to afford them and starve. How is that a good thing?

~~~
gwright
If every store tripled the price of bottled water you would have truckloads of
water arriving within 24 hours with absolutely no government intervention at
all.

It would also mean that smart entrepreneurs would pre-stage needed supplies in
anticipation of the price increase. With strong 'gouging' laws, there is no
incentive to spend money on preparing the supply chain or in spending more
money to overcome supply difficulties (i.e diverting supplies from elsewhere,
rushing delivery, etc)

Price 'gouging' contains the seed of its own destruction because it encourages
over-supply and subsequently lower prices.

~~~
king_jester
> If every store tripled the price of bottled water you would have truckloads
> of water arriving within 24 hours with absolutely no government intervention
> at all.

In natural disaster scenarios, this is likely impossible as delivery
infrastructure usually goes down for some period of time. This is why price
gouging is successful for the businesses raising prices in first place.

> It would also mean that smart entrepreneurs would pre-stage needed supplies
> in anticipation of the price increase.

Businesses do not do a good job of stockpiling resources for exceptional
events that happen once in many years and many businesses view this as a cost
that is not worth paying.

> With strong 'gouging' laws, there is no incentive to spend money on
> preparing the supply chain or in spending more money to overcome supply
> difficulties (i.e diverting supplies from elsewhere, rushing delivery, etc)

There is no incentive in general since there is an very low probability that
work on on delivery and supply channels will actually pay off as it is a low
probability that a disaster scenario will happen in the first place.

> With strong 'gouging' laws, there is no incentive to spend money on
> preparing the supply chain or in spending more money to overcome supply
> difficulties (i.e diverting supplies from elsewhere, rushing delivery, etc)

Most historical examples of price gouging never worked out this way. On a
logic basis, this doesn't make sense as the point of price gouging is to
maximize revenue from sale during a short window of time while new supplies
and materials cannot make it to the area where you are selling the now highly
priced goods.

~~~
gwright
The utility of 'price' (whether it involves "gouging" or not) is to signal the
entire marketplace regarding the current state of supply vs. demand. The
market is dynamic and responds to the signal.

If you attempt to legislate the rules regarding price you are making it
illegal to respond to the signal. This just leads to oversupply and legally
enforced profit (the price is too high) or shortages and legislative enforced
queues and delays (the price is too low).

~~~
king_jester
> The market is dynamic and responds to the signal.

W.r.t to price gouging, this is the thing that doesn't happen or doesn't
happen quickly enough and means people who can't afford the new high price go
without. For essentials like food, water, batteries in a no power situation,
etc. that is a huge problem.

~~~
gwright
How 'quickly' is not quick enough for you? Companies like Walmart and Home
Depot are getting pretty darn good at responding to disasters, especially for
things like hurricanes where there is considerable lead time.

Smaller events like tornados are much easier to respond to because they are
localized.

Price gouging laws negate any sort of systemic planning to take advantage of
short-term price spikes. Eliminate the laws and you open up opportunities for
creative businesses to plan and respond to these short-term opportunities.

------
derefr
I find it odd that Uber is constantly fighting various countries' laws to be
considered "a taxi service, but not a taxi service", when they could just
change their business model a tiny bit and fall straight into the middle of
the "limousine service" classification.

Why _not_ charge just-time instead of time+distance? Would it screw over the
drivers?

~~~
corin_
Sometimes it would screw over the drivers, sometimes the customers, and
depending on how it was priced you could force that to one side or the other.

Distance + time is the most fair solution, as if there's no traffic and you
get there super fast the driver still gets a fair fee (unlike if it was time
only), if there's lots of traffic and it takes ages to get there then the
customer doesn't have to pay a huge fee (like if it was time only).

Personally I'd never use a taxi service that charged only by time. I'm OK with
time+distance, or with distance only (which is also used in some places).

~~~
sesqu
It's worth noting that with Uber's current price structure, if you get there
super fast the fee is small, and if it takes ages it's huge. So it sounds more
like worst of both worlds.

~~~
corin_
That's the way most taxi services work - if it takes longer you pay more
because the driver is spending more time getting you there, however it's not
as bad as if the price was just time and not distance.

~~~
sesqu
Yeah - just saying that if the goal is to have a function that's medium for
both high and low speeds, m+s is not it.

It definitely makes sense to pay more for longer distances, but I for one do
not want to pay extra for slower travel. Something like m-s or m+s^-1 would be
better.

~~~
corin_
Of course you don't _want_ to pay more for a slower trip, but taxi drivers
don't _want_ to have their hourly profit reduced by being stuck in traffic.

At the end of the day, they could reduce the time cost so that going slower
doesn't cost more, but they'd have to also raise the distance cost, so that
drivers (and taxi companies) still make the same amount of money on average.

But combining them, the way it works now, makes the most sense, as when you
use a taxi service you are paying for the technical costs of getting somewhere
(fuel, etc.) and the cost of your driver's time, so why shouldn't it be
calculated that way.

~~~
sesqu
I'm not paying for the driver's time - the taxi company is responsible for
that. I want a transport that takes me from point A to point B in the shortest
time possible, and paying for the driver's time (at a higher rate, no less) is
actively against my interests, since it disincentivizes speed.

You could make the argument that chauffeurs are paid for on a time-only basis,
but then we're talking about a driver who I can tell to wait for me outside
the store or party, a driver who can tell me about the sights on the scenic
route we're taking, or a driver who will take me all over the county on
business. Then you could add a basic wear or fuel surcharge per m, but again
it should be decreasing (and small).

I haven't used chauffeur services myself, but a quote I found charges less per
hour than Uber and nothing per km and no starting charge. They do have higher
minimums, though. So I guess Uber could be presenting themselves as a
chauffeur company for shopping trips, with 50%-150% markups when moving. As
the article points out, they've failed to make that case.

~~~
corin_
> _I'm not paying for the driver's time_

Of course you are - whether you do so directly or through a company is
irrelevant, either way the driver needs to get paid.

They could change it so that you don't pay more for slow trips, but in return
fast trips would become more expensive to even it out, otherwise all you're
doing is taking money away from the company/drivers. Then people who travel at
peak traffic times are being subsidized by those who travel when the roads are
empty.

(Personally I actually prefer non-metered trips, where I know that A to B
always costs £x regardless of traffic, but there's certainly a lot of logic in
charging by both distance and time.)

------
ubersync
I was on Uber's side for a long time initially. But with what's have been
going on in the past few months, I am more than willing to believe the author.
Especially after that protest by some drivers, outside their office in SF. "It
was only a handful of drivers", you might argue. But the fact that none of the
company officials came down to listen to them, just points out their "we don't
give a fuck" attitude. And it is this arrogance, that brings down corporates
and even empires.

~~~
jfoster
I don't think their failure to attend the protest was necessarily "we don't
give a fuck." If only for self preservation reasons they almost certainly do
care. They likely didn't attend because they didn't want to increase the
likelihood of the protest becoming a larger story on the media. They're much
better off only engaging drivers in private meetings.

~~~
ubersync
Having been part of student protests in the past, I believe this is one of the
worst ways to handle a protest.

~~~
jfoster
I agree that it's imperfect, but what's the alternative? How would you
envisage that alternative playing out for each of the parties?

------
andrewcooke
this approach has worked well for uber in the usa. wonder if they've made a
mistake by assuming that anti-govt sentiment in other countries is similar? or
by simply copying the technique without thinking?

but this is from a single english-language post. what is the rest of the local
reaction like? [ah, see reply below - i missed "response was huge" (in the
sense of support for uber)]

~~~
_delirium
I suspect the angle of an Ayn-Rand-quoting American who sees himself as Galt
won't play quite as well in Sweden, either...

~~~
mindjiver
There are strong libertarian strands in several swedish parties so there are
some comrades in arms. Quoting Ayn Rand in parliament has happened.

But even as a libertarian leaning swede I find myself quite annoyed by Uber.
In the 1990s, IIRC, the taxi market was striktly regulated and finding taxis
where a problem. Now in Stockholm there are many, many taxis all over the
place so I personally don't get what problem Uber is really trying to solve
here.

~~~
venomsnake
The problem of how to cash higher in an IPO and be hailed by the media as the
next next Zuckebergs.

------
Nursie
So what exactly is their model?

I found it hard to figure out from their website how they differ from any
other taxi service with online ordering and payment.

Also, if there are rules in Sweden about meters and price displays, there's
probably a consumer-focussed reason for them.

~~~
_delirium
In the U.S., one difference is that they have more convenient and reliable
dispatch than regular taxis, focused on virtually "hailing" a nearby car
through their mobile app, rather than the two traditional options of: 1)
trying to flag down a taxi on the street, or 2) booking one over the phone or
internet and then waiting for it to come.

I think that's less novel in Sweden, though. Taxi apps are already common, and
"virtual hailing" is how most younger people already hail taxis. In addition,
there are a number of taxi companies, each of which can set their own prices
and position themselves in different market niches, so you can choose one you
like. In that market, Über may just be another taxi company with an app, and
not have enough differentiation:
[http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/bostonblatte/2013/04/26/stockho...](http://www.thelocal.se/blogs/bostonblatte/2013/04/26/stockholm-
taxi-wars-uber-fail/)

Starting in SF probably helped them, too: SF's taxi system is worse than most.

------
zalew
I don't understand it. Why the constant drama around their every (lack of)
license? Can't they just obtain ones just like the rest of driver services or
do the authorities owe them something?

~~~
_pmf_
> Why the constant drama around their every (lack of) license?

I don't know about Sweden, but here in Germany licenses are limited, i.e.
there is no infinite amount of taxi license per city.

~~~
mjn
Sweden deregulated its taxis in 1990. There is now no limit on the number of
taxis (though drivers do have to pass an exam), and no restrictions on what
they can charge. The deregulation did produce a big uptick in the # of taxis
in Stockholm.

There are now some complaints in the other direction about the deregulated
prices, especially because some less scrupulous drivers are trying to
deliberately trick tourists into paying outrageous prices. Prices have to be
posted in windows, so of course no Swede or tourist paying attention would
take a taxi that charges $200 for what would normally be a $20 trip. But you
only have to trick a handful per day to make it a profitable scam. Just need
to get some tourists who either don't realize that rates are unregulated in
Stockholm, who didn't see the rate sticker, or who did but didn't mentally
convert the SEK to something they understand.

A bit on that: <http://www.thelocal.se/16868/20090112/>

------
sesqu
What a odd pricing model. 50 SEK + 175 SEK/10 km at moderate speeds, with a
jump discontinuity to 50 SEK + 600 SEK/10 km and above at low speeds - such as
traffic lights.

Taxi Stockholm charges 45 SEK + 246-280 SEK/10 km, which looks like more, but
it's hard to compare without knowing how much of the time is spent at low
speeds. Taking the pessimal estimate of 15 minutes in a standstill to charge
the hyperdrive, followed by a 10 kilometer spurt at lightspeed, we get an
upper bound of 50 SEK + 445 SEK/10 km, or 165% of the article's index fare. I
honestly can't tell if that's competitive.

I imagine that's why they don't want to make a sticker.

Oh, and then there's the much higher fixed price for city center travel. I
trust that doesn't get added on to a trip that crosses the boundary.

------
jgalt212
Uber loves operating by "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" proverb. But what
they fail to realize or discount its importance is that the squeaky wheel is
also the first one to be replaced.

------
don_draper
>>Also, they finally answered my question about how many cars they have in
Stockholm by saying “Like all companies we have numbers we don’t give out”.

And unlike other companies our press releases are written by children.

~~~
bobsoap
Fixed: >> And unlike other companies our press releases are written by
pubescent teenagers.

------
netcan
Taxis tend to be locally regulated. Regulations are good and bad. In some
places, they ended up with plainly stupid rules. In some places the are about
protecting drivers' revenues. But, they also protect consumers. IE, some of
these regulations are not net bad, even if they are inconvenient or have some
bad side effects.

Even good regulation creates inflexibility. It's just a cost. It takes into
account the way things are now and makes it difficult to allow new business
models to develop. It makes it difficult for companies to operate in multiple
regulatory regions. They can lock in revenue streams and/or profit margins for
companies, drivers or taxmen.

Uber's a new player threatening income streams. That will rattle cages. But
they are also a global company and an innovative^ one. Being innovative means
they clash with existing rules and policies by not fitting into existing
classifications. Being multi-regional means they have a hard time being
flexible themselves. They want to be able to drop in their system in every
city they operate in.

They want to represent themselves as on a collision course with bad/corrupt
regulation. But, they are really on an unavoidable collision course with all
taxi regulators everywhere.

~~~
masklinn
> But they are also [...] an innovative [company].

Not really, at least not as far as Stockholm is concerned. Unless by
"innovative" you mean that they innovate in their ignorance and refusal to
comply with regulations not matter how sensible those are (or, according to
TFAA, how people attempt to help them: it was noted they could get their
application certified as a meter and people have come forward to help with
that, it would seem uber didn't even try doing that).

~~~
netcan
Innovative, in this context, means they are doing things in a way that was not
previously done. IE, you use you mobile phone to order the taxi or pay. The
current system is built around (presumably) people calling or waving & paying
with cash or CC.

~~~
masklinn
> IE, you use you mobile phone to order the taxi or pay.

Except you already did that in Stockholm, at least for the ordering part (not
sure about payment).

------
mixedbit
"... such a qualitative, safe and modern mode of transportation should be
available for everyone"

This is such a BS. Stockholm is one of the best capital city to live in, and
one of the reasons is that the car traffic has the lowest priority there. You
actually need to pay to enter the city centre by car, which I would consider
much more modern approach than giving everyone an easy way to drive a limo.

------
oleganza
Some quotes from the article:

"The market is unregulated, meaning that you can set any price for your
services."

"You can safely say that there’s healthy competition on the market."

"You do need a permit to have a taxi service."

"The fact is that Uber are asking for an exemption to be able to compete on
unfair grounds"

Notice some contradictions here?

Author claims that market is unregulated and competition is fair, but then
admits there is regulation and legal requirements (that cost real money). If
you want to make a nice private taxi service with 2x lower prices, you cannot
because you have to pay local government for all licenses and whatever
taximeter _they_ provide you, not the one you design for your own company and
your customers' safety.

When talking about "unfair advantage", author makes presupposition that
existing regulations and licensing are "fair". Well, that needs to be proven.
Saying "somebody voted for it in a democracy" is not a proof, sorry. Try that
with a scientific study: "scientists voted that P != NP with 58% majority".

~~~
oleganza
I don't know about Stockholm, but in US and France taxi drivers must buy a
taxi license for many thousands of dollars/euros that effectively allows them
be a part of a monopoly. The price for the license is market-defined because
there is a limited number of licenses and few restrictions on trading them.
But the interesting point is that licenses were initially created many years
ago by some taxi mafia and lobbied to be enforced by police.

Now, put aside "fairness" issues, just imagine if someone comes up with Uber
or similar service to work around these licensing requirements. And at the
same time provides superior service. They will be able to ask lower prices,
which will endanger every taxi driver who's invested already to be a part of a
monopoly.

Now imagine that something like Uber moves to bitcoins and become almost
anonymous. You won't be able to shutdown the central organisation - it's
outside the country and has no bank account. You'll have to fight with
individual "illegal" taxi drivers that use the system. But how would you prove
that they get paid? There are no credit cards or cash. The person who gets in
the car only tells the driver a short pin code to authenticate himself. Or
says nothing at all. The driver just gives a friendly lift.

Suddenly no one needs taxis and every taxi driver has lost tens of thousands
of dollars invested in his license and can do nothing about it. Customers win,
other drivers win, mafia loses. Is it fair? Is in unfair? If you cannot avoid
this outcome, does it really matter?

~~~
Nursie
Completely unregulated and unregistered cab services have a history of very
bad things happening in them in the UK.

Customers do not win, customers get assaulted and raped.

~~~
gw
This is a complete fallacy. Any black market, by definition, will have a
higher incidence of other criminal activity, because people who are willing to
violate one law are often willing to violate others.

This is no different than arguing that we should continue drug prohibition
because there are a lot of violent incidents that occur during transactions.
That violence exists precisely because the activity was forced underground.

Moreover, even if those services weren't illegal, it nevertheless is true that
lower cost services will always bear a higher degree of risk. The same thing
applies to practically any business. Being poor sucks, but pricing such people
out of entire industries won't help them.

~~~
Nursie
_"This is a complete fallacy."_

What's a fallacy? That the unregulated market resulted in a lot of rapes and
assaults, and now it's more regulated (and parts of previous practice are
illegal) there are less?

Because that's what actually happened, whether you think it's a fallacy or
not.

~~~
gw
As you pointed out, the rapes and assaults are ongoing. By making the bottom
of the market illegal (by making it uneconomical), you haven't stopped these
crimes from happening, you've simply forced them to occur in the black market
where there is even less of a chance to prevent them.

Again, the analogy with drug prohibition is clear. There is an incredible
amount of violence occurring, but that isn't a justification for continuing
its illegality. To the contrary, its illegal nature is the primary reason the
violence occurs, because there is no way to settle disputes in the court
system.

Similarly, someone operating a black market taxi cannot call the police when
someone refuses to pay. Instead, they must resort to threatening (and engaging
in) violence to get payment. The customers may engage in violence against
these underground drivers for the same reason. Making it illegal serves
nobody, and only increases danger for all parties.

~~~
Nursie
_As you pointed out, the rapes and assaults are ongoing. By making the bottom
of the market illegal (by making it uneconomical), you haven't stopped these
crimes from happening, you've simply forced them to occur in the black market
where there is even less of a chance to prevent them._

Except the numbers are now smaller, less people are put at risk and less
people see that risk realised. It demonstrably has made the situation better,
not worse.

 _Again, the analogy with drug prohibition is clear. There is an incredible
amount of violence occurring, but that isn't a justification for continuing
its illegality. To the contrary, its illegal nature is the primary reason the
violence occurs_

Except that turns out not to be anything like what happened with cabs when the
violence was worse when the illegality was _not_ present. So no, it's not a
good analogy and it doesn't work.

 _Similarly, someone operating a black market taxi cannot call the police when
someone refuses to pay. Instead, they must resort to threatening (and engaging
in) violence to get payment._

This is their lookout for running an illegal service.

 _The customers may engage in violence against these underground drivers for
the same reason. Making it illegal serves nobody, and only increases danger
for all parties._

Except it has actually reduced the danger.

Look, you can argue the prohibition line all you like but it doesn't match
what has actually happened out in the real world.

~~~
gw
Since the article doesn't get into your purported statistics, I can only
speculate as to what you are referring to. People in the U.S. often try to
retroactively justify tougher drug laws by pointing to lower crime rates, when
in fact often times people are simply less likely to report being victimized
because they were engaging in an illegal transaction.

Moreover, reality has a way of resisting controlled experiments. It is
essentially impossible to control every variable that might influence reported
crime rates, so the mere fact that there may be fewer reported taxi-related
crimes after regulation increased than before would be an unconvincing
argument.

This is really an epistemological argument. Due to the inherent
uncontrollability of every variable, the only way to accurately understand the
effects of a government policy are to look at the economic incentives it
creates. Simply asserting that economic incentives that underly the drug
market don't also apply to other black markets is arbitrary.

~~~
Nursie
And you simply asserting that the economic incentives that do underly the drug
market apply everywhere is every bit as arbitrary!

Drugs are not like cabs. You can't get a licensed drug after five minutes
wait. Nobody actually wants or needs a specifically illegal cab, they just
want a cab. The analogy simply does not work.

What's unconvincing is you calling my argument a fallacy and then falling back
to "oh but it's hard to measure!"

\--edit-- also FFS you think anyone's put off reporting assault because they
were in an illegal cab? What the hell are you on? It's not illegal to be a
customer, it's illegal to run the service.

~~~
gw
It isn't arbitrary to assert the universality of economic laws -- no school of
economics holds otherwise. In fact the entire point of this science is to
discover principles that exist in all circumstances.

Moreover asserting the difficulty of empirical measurement isn't a cop-out;
it's one of the most fundamental debates, not just in economics, but in
philosophy. This is Plato vs Aristotle, or Kant vs Hegel. It's an incredibly
important issue and not one to dismiss so nonchalantly.

Regarding the likelihood of reporting assault, I was specifically talking
about drugs. You are probably right about the unlicensed taxi customers, but
nevertheless the statistics for taxi assaults don't tell then whole story
because there is no way to account for assaults that occurred elsewhere that
_would_ have occurred in taxis has they been more readily available. Even if
that data were available, the uncontrollability of other factors would
continue to burden your attempts at empirical proof.

~~~
Nursie
_It isn't arbitrary to assert the universality of economic laws_

But it is arbitrary to assert that it works identically for all commodities
and services. Demand for some things (a ride home) is easily sublimed from one
solution (unlicensed cab) to another (licensed cab). Demand for other things
(heroin, weed, whatever) does not work the same way because the demand is 100%
aligned with the illegal item and therefore far more likely to set up a much
larger black market.

I think you would have a very hard time proving that the crime levels stayed
the same and the crime had just moved. Allowing unlicensed, unregistered cabs
that pick (mainly drunk) people up from the side of the road, was putting
vulnerable young people at risk. At least some of this demand has been shifted
to traceable, regulated businesses.

~~~
gw
Of course a fully-illegal thing will create a larger black market than a
partially-illegal thing, but that's only a quantitative difference; the
economics of the resulting black market remains then same. As long as they are
outside the legal system, they will experience more violence, and unscrupulous
people will continue to falsely claim that this justifies further
marginalizing and regulating such activity.

~~~
Nursie
Except when you talk about something like drugs it's easy to show the total
violence increases, and when talking about something like unregulated taxi
firms you can't make any such claim because it's easy to see how that market
is killed dead with little to no black market, because nobody particularly
wanted the product in the first place, it was just there.

------
venomsnake
Disruption for the sake of disruption.

Some of the taxi regulations are there for good reasons. If Uber cannot
provide better, cheaper and safer service at lower price with the same rules
they do not have right to exist. And if they want to bring a regulation down
they should do it for the whole industry if it is already obsolete.

~~~
ryanmolden
A cheaper price for goods and services is not a necessary precondition to
existence. People are free to pay more than absolute rock-bottom if they feel
the more expensive goods/service are superior. Unless you intended your list
to be disjunctive and I read it as conjunctive, if so, apologies.

~~~
venomsnake
Sorry ... I meant in Stockholm. There the market is free (as few swedes here
comment) with no artificial barriers on entry like medallions. There are rules
but they are for everybody. So if Uber cannot make their model work they
should not operate there and not whine for exceptions. So they should just
find ways to make money or seize to operate there. They could bring efficiency
- cheaper, quality - faster response time etc or better cars or something.

------
lnanek2
Really long post claiming, basically, that Uber needs a sticker and to charge
a certain way for consumer safety. Neither really makes any sense. I know how
Uber charges when I call a car, I don't need a sticker on the window. It's
useless. Taximeters are also useless with Uber, it takes care of all the
payments and tips for you automatically. I hate it when I have to cab with
someone who insists on paying then takes ten minutes digging through their
wallet and screwing around. With Uber I just hop out of the car and it's done.
I wonder if the writer has ever even used it.

------
59nadir
One would think a company that has success in mind would have the
brains/motivation to actually learn about the culture they're setting up in.
[A pattern could emerge if one were to draw parallels to wars in far-away
Asian countries, though.]

They can't have that good of a grasp of Swedish culture if they thought this
would work. I'm struggling to find a hypothetical country in Europe where
"obnoxious American" is the preferred type of American.

------
fennecfoxen
Entrenched taxi industry suppresses competitors in the name of "protecting"
the consumers who choose them, claiming that it's "unfair" they're operating
with a different business model... Oldest story in the book.

Bureaucracy. I hope you choke on it.

~~~
subsystem
FUD. What different business model? It's fairly similar to what's already
being offered by other companies (nice cars, phone app, good service) and all
they have to do to comply is a price sticker and a meter.

~~~
dantheman
Dynamic pricing is a different business model -- it's kind of incompatible
with a sticker.

~~~
subsystem
Unless you use a screen. They could probably get away with showing the price
in the app, it just have to be in the 10 km in 15 min format. They would still
have to have a meter or their app certified. Or provide a fixed price option
in the app based on from and where you're going like the other companies do,
in which case I imagine they would be covered by the exemption.

------
craigslistmodel
wow

