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

111–120 of 219 posts

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#111

Post by baddox »

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…

> Based on history there is no reason to believe that the purchase of a taxi medallion could result reasonably in losing "most or all" of the initial outlay.

This is always the case before an asset loses value for the first time.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#112

Post by baddox »

argumentum wrote: post #93
enf wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lincoln's strategy required the forced labor (and for some, subsequent deaths) of tens of thousands of people. The irony of conscription wasn't lost on Americans at the time either, and the military drafts were extremely unpopular on both sides.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#113

Post by adventured »

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…

That and the fact that the US is 1/7th as densely populated as the UK (UK is 260 people per km, the US is 34/km). The US is #179 on the population density list country wise. If someone won't sell you a piece of land, there's a vast supply of other land to look at. The only place you'll run into a problem is in a few high density metros like NYC.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#114

Post by baddox »

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 prefer making the comparison to dodging it.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#115

Post by rhizome »

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.

I'm not sure adding £1,000,000 to the price of houses is a rational solution to ground rent.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#116

Post by argumentum »

baddox wrote: post #112
argumentum wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lincoln's strategy required the forced labor (and for some, subsequent deaths) of tens of thousands of people. The irony of conscription wasn't lost on Americans at the time either, and the military drafts were extremely unpopular on both sides.

Lincoln's strategy itself was "required* because slave-owners and slave-owning states would not give up their slaves without a fight. Blame them, not Lincoln.

Lincoln himself was well aware of the costs that would be imposed by war, but chose this course of action due to the absurdly perverse nature of slavery.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#117

Post by mnutt »

gertef wrote: post #20
yummyfajitas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Policing cabs is vastly cheaper than the cost of a medallion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1650659 Cities therefore have a powerful interest in making sure that whatever else happens, there is a strata of taxi service available to all residents of the city at some predictable rate. Limiting the supply of taxes reduces the likelihood that this will occur. Not that NY has anything like the "universal service" y…

Taxis are required to service all destinations in manhattan. But yeah, originations are a problem.

They often stop with their doors locked, roll down the window, and ask where you are going.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#118

Post by adventured »

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...

If organized crime is involved (or similar), then it's a failure of government.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#119

Post by lanstein »

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.

see: Fung Wah buses on the East Coast

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#120

Post by baddox »

argumentum wrote: post #116
baddox wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lincoln's strategy required the forced labor (and for some, subsequent deaths) of tens of thousands of people. The irony of conscription wasn't lost on Americans at the time either, and the military drafts were extremely unpopular on both sides.

Lincoln's strategy itself was "required* because slave-owners and slave-owning states would not give up their slaves without a fight. Blame them, not Lincoln. Lincoln himself was well aware of the costs that would be imposed by war, but chose this course of action due to the absurdly perverse nature of slavery. http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

I don't doubt that Lincoln personally resolved his internal ethical dilemmas, but I do doubt that this would be any consolation to me if I were forced to fight in an army.
Post reply on HN