Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 219 posts

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#41

Post by NoPiece »

potatolicious wrote: post #28
NoPiece wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are saying is fine, but that's not why taxi's were regulated, at least in New York. The regulations go back to the depression and were put in place specifically to limit competition in order to keep prices high and protect employment of existing cab drivers. The history is right on the NYC gov page: http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_... -- quoting from the NYC site: "Widespread pove…

> "who used what some considered to be “underhanded tactics,” such as drastically lowering fares, to get more business." Lower fares is not the only consequence of this type of free market. In NYC we've seen a rise of intercity buses competing at cut-rate prices, and one such bus company recently and spectacularly failed every single safety inspection performed on their vehicles. They also have an accident rate sever…

You say, "it's dishonest to pretend that regulation is strictly driven by parasitic behavior," but I was just quoting directly from the nyc.gov site that explains that's exactly why those regulations came to be.

You can argue separately for safety regulations, but that's not why NY started to regulate cabs - it was protecting an existing industry from competition. Also, put yourself in the 1935 mindset - was there even auto insurances? were there seat belts? The risk profile people lived with was much different.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#42

Post by chaz »

NoPiece wrote: post #9
tptacek wrote: post #4

Apart from all the obvious externalities of cab driving operations, the extremely high probability of fraud, and the fact that policing cabs is extraordinarily expensive, there's another problem a lot of these analyses miss about why cabs are regulated the way they are. In many large cities, the taxi system is a fundamental component of the transport infrastructure. There are locations in most cities that are not eff…

What you are saying is fine, but that's not why taxi's were regulated, at least in New York. The regulations go back to the depression and were put in place specifically to limit competition in order to keep prices high and protect employment of existing cab drivers. The history is right on the NYC gov page: http://www.nyc.gov/html/media/totweb/taxioftomorrow_history_... -- quoting from the NYC site: "Widespread pove…

Regardless of origins, I think there's still an important role for city governments to manage the number of cars on the street. NPR Planet Money did a story about the effect of NYC's planned +2,000 cabs (in additional to the existing 13,200) will have on the city: shorter wait times, but longer drive times for everyone. If the story is correct, more deregulation with more cars on the street without other measures (such as congestion pricing) would be bad for the public. NYC traffic is already bad enough.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/31/157477611/does-new...

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#43

Post by argumentum »

pg wrote: post #2

Structurally this practice is a lot like the preindustrial precursor of taxation, when governments would sell monopolies on the import or production of things in exchange for a lump sum. When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister.

When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister.

Why is this true? Perhaps keeping these practices around, despite them being obsolete, implies ulterior motives?

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#44

Post by learc83 »

onemorepassword wrote: post #14

There is a flipside however, for those who think deregulation is the answer. In Amsterdam, the taxi market has been completely deregulated. You do not want to get a taxi there unless you order it from a trusted source, and even then it's ridiculously expensive. And you don't want to try to disrupt that market unless you have good organized crime connections...

>And you don't want to try to disrupt that market unless you have good organized crime connections...

How much of that is caused by decriminalization of drug use without decriminalization of large scale drug supply?

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#45

Post by argumentum »

mattmanser wrote: post #39
pg wrote: post #2

Structurally this practice is a lot like the preindustrial precursor of taxation, when governments would sell monopolies on the import or production of things in exchange for a lump sum. When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister.

Honest question, why sinister? What has happened? Another poster is claiming the unregulated Amsterdam market has been taken over by organised crime. That actually sounds sinister.

It's sinister because it pretends to be altruistic while simultaneously serving the interest of a small faction.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#48

Post by AnthonyMouse »

DanBC wrote: post #29
kevinskii wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The situation was made worse by the tactics of “wildcat” (unlicensed) taxis who used what some considered to be “underhanded tactics,” such as drastically lowering fares, to get more business. Lowering fares to get more business? Oh my. What good could possibly come of such a thing.

If they lower fares by not getting insurance and not maintaining their vehicles it's probably a bad thing.

Wouldn't requiring them to carry insurance and maintain their vehicles still be better than government-granted monopolies?

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#49

Post by seanalltogether »

pg wrote: post #2

Structurally this practice is a lot like the preindustrial precursor of taxation, when governments would sell monopolies on the import or production of things in exchange for a lump sum. When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister.

I've brought this up in another thread, but over in the UK, due to a lack of property taxes, its possible to purchase a home, yet stil have to pay a yearly ground rent to a private party. The cost to own land in nothing, so there's little incentive to ever sell it, and instead lease it out. People may complain about property taxes in the USA, but it prevents this very practice from happening. It would be better for everyone if the medallion system switched over to a yearly taxation/bidding system. You would lose all these middleman renters.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#50

Post by argumentum »

seanalltogether wrote: post #49
pg wrote: post #2

Structurally this practice is a lot like the preindustrial precursor of taxation, when governments would sell monopolies on the import or production of things in exchange for a lump sum. When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister.

I've brought this up in another thread, but over in the UK, due to a lack of property taxes, its possible to purchase a home, yet stil have to pay a yearly ground rent to a private party. The cost to own land in nothing, so there's little incentive to ever sell it, and instead lease it out. People may complain about property taxes in the USA, but it prevents this very practice from happening. It would be better for e…

I don't understand .. why would you purchase a home without the land it rests on? In a free market, perhaps there is some lower price where you would do this, but there is also a higher price where you could purchase the land as well.
Post reply on HN