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

91–100 of 219 posts

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#91

Post by larrys »

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…

" the taxi system is a fundamental component of the transport infrastructure."

Startups, VC's and angels don't want to consider any points like that. They only care about how they can get a part of the pie (like any business.) VC and angels are business people who are motivate by profit (full disclosure: so am I). Startups are started by people who simply think everything from the old way of doing things is bad and needs to be overturned and not to trust anyone over 30 as the old saying went.

Along these lines I'm waiting for startups to try and "disrupt" the liquor control system (and liquor licenses) that are in place in various communities across the country for good reason even though legacy owners profit from that "restriction of supply" as well.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#92

Post by andylei »

mindcrime wrote: post #38
aetherson wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a reason to limit the supply of taxis. That's a reason to charge a fee for a taxi license that defrays the cost of regulating them.

Sounds like a reason to stop regulating taxis to me. If some sort of independent "certification" is needed, there's no reason the free market can't provide such a service. In fact, it such a service is actually valuable, it's almost inevitable that it would emerge.

> there's no reason the free market can't provide such a service

sure there is. here's a bunch of reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#93

Post by argumentum »

enf wrote: post #89
argumentum wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How might you propose to compensate people who, in good faith, bought taxi medallions I'm sure the following question was asked many times to abolitionists: How might you propose to compensate people who, in good faith, bought other people

It seems as disturbing to me as it apparently does to you, but it was recently in the news that the UK actually did a buyout when they abolished slavery. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-colo...

It's a tricky situation, philosophically. This may have helped the UK abolish slavery sooner (a good outcome), but its morally and legally dubious.

This was suggested many times during the lead-up to the Civil War, but (I think rightly) Lincoln as well as the more hard-core abolitionists viewed this strategy as contradicting their position that Slavery was a crime against Natural Law.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#94

Post by seanmcdirmid »

argumentum wrote: post #50
seanalltogether wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, what if most houses in an economy were what we called apartments?

Also, in China, the people (gov) owns the land. We are only entitled to a 70 year lease on it. Oddly enough, this is applied to housing (apartments) also. But China also lacks a property tax and so has all the bad speculation behavior and rent-seeking that goes along with that.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#95

Post by vacri »

argumentum wrote: post #75
vacri wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Separation of Powers isn't necessary for government, but it is a good practice, for example. Would anyone serious call that obsolete?

I agree, it's a good practice, intended to prevent government from assuming a whole bunch of bad practices that (unopposed) it tends to assume. But to take your point to the extreme, democracy, courts, etc are also therefore not necessary functions of government. I'd argue that they are necessary components of a good government. All the best parts of government limit the scope of government .. that says something.

So take voting. Just saying 'the vote' is way too simplistic. Allowing women to vote? Good, not obsolete. Allowing minorities to vote? Good, not obsolete. Electoral college method? Facilitates sinister behaviour, obsolete. Districting rules that allow for relatively easy gerrymandering? Obsolete, and definitively sinister. Promotional materials encouraging people to exercise their rights by voting? Good, not obsolete.

All the best parts of government limit the scope of government .. that says something.

No it doesn't. That's an overly simplistic slogan. Provision of universal healthcare is a clear and topical example.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#96

Post by argumentum »

larrys wrote: post #90
argumentum wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How might you propose to compensate people who, in good faith, bought taxi medallions I'm sure the following question was asked many times to abolitionists: How might you propose to compensate people who, in good faith, bought other people

"How might you propose to compensate people who, in good faith, bought other people" Seriously? You're making that comparison?

I'm comparing the logic, not the gravity of the situations.

You had pointed out (rightly) that purchasing and holding medallions is legal, and those who bought them did so with the understanding that they would profit. At the same time, they must have observed that the very existence of the medallion system limited the freedom of others. Some might have even genuinely viewed this as altruistic.

All that was true of slaveowners and slaves.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#97

Post by tptacek »

larrys wrote: post #91
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…

" the taxi system is a fundamental component of the transport infrastructure." Startups, VC's and angels don't want to consider any points like that. They only care about how they can get a part of the pie (like any business.) VC and angels are business people who are motivate by profit (full disclosure: so am I). Startups are started by people who simply think everything from the old way of doing things is bad and n…

Liquor controls are an example of a genuinely obsolete regulatory regime, as are distillery licenses.

On the other hand, as we can plainly see, late-night permits and ABC licenses in California are a matter of open conflict between residential and commercial parties.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#98

Post by vacri »

aetherson wrote: post #60
bcgraham wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's the only type of home on the market!

Well, argumentum's point is that presumably there is some cost at which the ground holder would sell the land. Like, if the ground rental brings in $10,000 per year to the owner of the title, and I came along and said, "I will pay your $1,000,000 for the title," well... I'm offering you one century's worth of ground-use fees up-front. Presumably all but the most irrational actors would sell their ground.

Of course, but that's nitpicking. The point is that the price is well out of reach of the average Tom.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#99

Post by jstanley »

codex wrote: post #87

Medallions exist for a very good reason: they prevent a tragedy of the commons from creating gridlock and pollution in major cities by limiting the number of cars circling around doing nothing on city streets. Most of the time, cabs just drive around waiting for a fare. This is because cabs are often hailed when they are seen, but even if a cab is summoned by a phone call (or smartphone) the closet cab to the fare is…

"they prevent a tragedy of the commons from creating gridlock and pollution in major cities by limiting the number of cars circling around doing nothing on city streets."

Why would a free market not prevent this? if there are excess taxis, taxi-driving is not profitable. If taxi-driving is profitable and there is still gridlock, that is a different problem. Avoiding gridlock by creating an artificial shortage of transport is not an appropriate solution IMO.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#100

Post by tptacek »

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…

I'm not sure why it matters what the original impetus behind medallions was. Maybe that means we should have a different regulatory regime more suited to ensuring that every resident of a major metro area has access to safe, efficient taxi transport and less suited towards ensuring a living wage for cab drivers. That's fine. But it's not an argument for no regulation at all.

There may be a compelling argument for no regulation. I'm just saying, that's not it.

Post reply on HN