> Uber & co. have been a net positive to the country, the people and the economy.
Net-positive for who? Folks who can afford to pay for their services? That's probably just the top 10%. If you speak to the drivers, they have nothing but complaints about the economics of it all.
Not discounting the fact that there's increased traffic now and overall less emphasis on using/improving public transit.
> After pouring billions into creating and proving a market, the government is baselessly capping their earnings.
I don't understand this line of thinking: Pouring billions shouldn't really get you a free pass to exploit, corrupt, amend, sway, flout, transcend, overpower governance, regulations, laws, discussions, resources. As far as creating value is concerned (on-demand rides), may be you've got a point: The taxi industry was expensive before Ola and Uber set foot, but it turns out VC money is finite, and expensive is what makes it work economically on the supply-side.
> After all, every stakeholder in this vertical is an at-will participant, with no compulsion to stay if the economics do not work out.
Surely, you have heard abt the high incentives based payment structure that Uber and Ola had in 2015/16 that coerced the drivers into taking loans for their cars which they struggle to since pay, now that those incentives have been changed because IPO? It doesn't seem to me you're thinking much from the drivers' side who are really struggling to make ends meet with the current predatory commissions that Uber et al enforce. The problem here is, there's a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of aggregators which time and again they've exercised in a ruthless manner: There's a need to curb that greed that otherwise would eat up the already economically struggling populace, imho.