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

101–110 of 219 posts

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#101

Post by mikeash »

larrys wrote: post #88
schiffern wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article said it pretty well. > So, medallion holders speculated in holding a government asset and lost. Some of these people are also taxi drivers or operators of taxi dispatch companies. Like Greek bondholders, they gambled and lost big.

"So, medallion holders speculated" Don't agree with that at all that is what the article says. (It doesn't match up with my definition either based on my years of business experience either.) Definition of "speculation" from investopedia: "The act of trading in an asset, or conducting a financial transaction, that has a significant risk of losing most or all of the initial outlay, in expectation of a substantial gain…

The comparison with eminent domain is interesting. If the government abolished taxi medallions, are they really taking something from those who own them? The medallion is basically the right to operate a taxi. If the government abolished medallions, then they'd still have the right to operate a taxi, it's just that a lot of other people would too. Obviously they lose a major competitive edge, but strictly speaking, the government hasn't taken any property here.

The best comparison I can think of involving real property would be owning a private tract of land in a valuable area that's almost all owned and unused by the government. One day, the government decides to sell its land. The value of your land plummets. It's still valuable due to whatever intrinsic wealth it has, but the new glut of supply makes it much less valuable. Is the government obligated to compensate you for that loss of value when they sell their land? I'd think not.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#102

Post by vacri »

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?

Slavery is soon going to need to be added as an additional clause to Godwin's Law.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#103

Post by YokoZar »

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…

If you want to limit congestion, price congestion.

Don't limit taxis, the right to drive people, the right to drive a car ending with a particular license plate number, or the amount of fuel available (all have been tried to reduce traffic) -- just make the roads themselves cost more when there are more cars on them, and make the roads cost less when there aren't.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#104

Post by adventured »

"In the last half decade, two trends conspired to end the taxi medallion regime. First, people are more comfortable with trusting strangers."

This isn't true. When I was growing up, hitch hiking was still very common.

I'd argue that people used to trust strangers to a radically higher degree before the prohibition based crime wave (the one that makes swaths of every city in the US more dangerous than Afghanistan) that began in the 1960s.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#105

Post by vacri »

jstanley wrote: post #99
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 tran…

What about other industries that need the streets? What you're saying is akin to saying "Who cares if the creek is poisoned downstream, I need to dump into it to maximise profits!"

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#106

Post by YokoZar »

jstanley wrote: post #99
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 tran…

The reason there is a tragedy of the commons is that not _all_ the costs are internal to the driver. Sure, if traffic is slow enough it becomes unprofitable for everyone, but before that point there's a situation where it's profitable to you but you're causing so much costs for other drivers it's a net bad for society.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#107

Post by JackFr »

gwern wrote: post #76
JackFr wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's far from obvious that demand has outstripped supply. The population of Manhattan was significantly higher in 1937 than it is now 1.9 million vs. 1.6 million. On a population basis it would seem that we would need fewer rather than more cabs. What drives the demand for cabs is the the price of a ride versus the alternative. If the regulated fare is low relative to subways & buses and the overall price level, cabs…

> It's far from obvious that demand has outstripped supply. The population of Manhattan was significantly higher in 1937 than it is now 1.9 million vs. 1.6 million. On a population basis it would seem that we would need fewer rather than more cabs. Wrong population number, in the case of Manhattan where real estate prices are so high that 'number of people officially living there' becomes the wrong metric, and the ri…

You miss the point -- it's not about the number -- it's about the change since 1937. No where in the reference you provide is there any evidence that this number has grown since 1937.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/subways_on_roll_fDYxgwu92...

From the Apr 10th NY Post: "More than 1.65 billion straphangers used the system in 2012 — numbers that haven’t been seen since 1946 when ridership was more than 2 billion, according to MTA statistics released yesterday"

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#108

Post by argumentum »

vacri wrote: post #95
argumentum wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Provision of universal healthcare is a clear and topical example.

Come on, you know that's political and there are arguments on both sides. For the record, I don't agree with you here.

I have no problem being simplistic, as long as I'm right. That being said, I take your criticism, and will rephrase part of what I said ..

Necessary components of government (such as many you mentioned) are the parts which define how the government works. These parts didn't start out perfect, and perfecting them is a good thing (i.e. women and minority voting).

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#109

Post by codex »

jstanley wrote: post #99
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 tran…

Simple: the number of cabs at which taxi driving is no longer profitable is far, far more than the optimal number of cabs.

The optimal number of cabs balances cab availability with traffic such that the time taken to go from point A to point B is minimal. This takes into account the time it takes to hail the cab (waiting around if there is none) and the time it takes for the cab to fight though traffic to point B. An additional constraint is that the number of cabs shouldn't prevent miserable gridlock for other drivers.

The number of cabs required before cab driving becomes unprofitable is a function of the number of people willing to work for meager wages, often less than minimum wage (in a big city, this number can be considered unlimited, especially if the job is part-time), the cost of gas, car, and insurance, and the market fare. Assuming the amortized cost of a car is fifty cents a mile, there is enough profit in cab driving for less privileged workers, even if the cab is idle most of the time.

Most importantly, traffic congestion in a big city is non-linear: it only takes a few extra cars on the road to create major gridlock.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#110

Post by jbooth »

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?

It's like godwin's law squared. Maybe because I'm american or maybe because the hitler comparison is cliche, but I'm more insulted by spurious comparison to a slave-owner than I am to Hitler.
Post reply on HN