It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: slider1982
Oil and water don't mix.
Uber taxis started in a weakly regulated US market, and have gone on to exploit regulation weakness elsewhere in the world.
The Uber model works where supply - rather than quality - is the primary form of regulation. Where quality is regulated, as in London ('the knowledge', vehicle standards, license infrastructure, etc.), the Uber proposition is severely weakened.
What remains is, in economic terms, simply a movement in the 'production possibility curve'. That is, an evolution away from illicit 'taxing' by criminals of cabs for using profitable pitches, to an app based control of market access, and terms of access.
All in all it would have been a bad decision to licence Uber, rather than simply a good one not to.
Perhaps George Osbourne (ex UK Chancellor) and David Cameron (ex-UK Prime Minister) were not such wise hirlings on the part of Uber.
originally posted by: SprocketUK
Uber makes money by dodging taxes, paying poorly and undercutting properly regulated taxi firms, making things less safe an worse for everyone.
originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: slider1982
Oil and water don't mix.
Uber taxis started in a weakly regulated US market, and have gone on to exploit regulation weakness elsewhere in the world.
The Uber model works where supply - rather than quality - is the primary form of regulation. Where quality is regulated, as in London ('the knowledge', vehicle standards, license infrastructure, etc.), the Uber proposition is severely weakened.
What remains is, in economic terms, simply a movement in the 'production possibility curve'. That is, an evolution away from illicit 'taxing' by criminals of cabs for using profitable pitches, to an app based control of market access, and terms of access.
All in all it would have been a bad decision to licence Uber, rather than simply a good one not to.
Perhaps George Osbourne (ex UK Chancellor) and David Cameron (ex-UK Prime Minister) were not such wise hirlings on the part of Uber.
A cynic might suggest that plan is to establish monopoly position then rack up prices.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: ScepticScot
A cynic might suggest that plan is to establish monopoly position then rack up prices.
That's not cynicism, it's mostly the truth.
Usually the plan is to enter a new market & cut the prices until you have a large share of the market or until your competition collapses from the price war. It doesn't matter if you're running a deficit for that time period because that was already planned and budgeted for. But once your competition starts collapsing, you can either keep pushing until they're bankrupt or buy them in a merger (or both). If you merge with them, you can save massive amounts of money by eliminating any of the redundancies and your merged company now has an even larger share of the market.
You don't usually start turning a profit until later, when you're the dominant company in that market or when you can profit from the economies of scale. And once you're the dominant company, you can start raising prices because there's no competition to undercut you... until the next well funded startup comes in & tries to take your spot by using a similar business plan.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: SprocketUK
Uber makes money by dodging taxes, paying poorly and undercutting properly regulated taxi firms, making things less safe an worse for everyone.
100% with my only caveat being Uber don't actually make any money. They have lost billions and can only expand the way they have due to massive deep pockets provided by venture capital.
A cynic might suggest that plan is to establish monopoly position then rack up prices.
originally posted by: Health
originally posted by: Doxanoxa
a reply to: slider1982
Oil and water don't mix.
Uber taxis started in a weakly regulated US market, and have gone on to exploit regulation weakness elsewhere in the world.
The Uber model works where supply - rather than quality - is the primary form of regulation. Where quality is regulated, as in London ('the knowledge', vehicle standards, license infrastructure, etc.), the Uber proposition is severely weakened.
What remains is, in economic terms, simply a movement in the 'production possibility curve'. That is, an evolution away from illicit 'taxing' by criminals of cabs for using profitable pitches, to an app based control of market access, and terms of access.
All in all it would have been a bad decision to licence Uber, rather than simply a good one not to.
Perhaps George Osbourne (ex UK Chancellor) and David Cameron (ex-UK Prime Minister) were not such wise hirlings on the part of Uber.
Uber is a successful business which provides a great service. That’s why people use it and prefer it to normal cabs. Governments disallowing people to use services they like seems like encroachment on freedom to me.