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

Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

digitalmcgyver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 261 posts

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#151

Post by untog »

gwright wrote: post #146
untog wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price "gouging" is actually a public service, it LITERALLY SAVES LIVES. It ensures that needed materials find their way to the people that need them the most. Seriously? The lower income people living on Staten Island during Sandy would like a word with you. Price gouging ensures that things are only available to people with excess income to absorb the gouged price. The whole point about price gouging during Sandy is…

If every store tripled the price of bottled water you would have truckloads of water arriving within 24 hours with absolutely no government intervention at all. It would also mean that smart entrepreneurs would pre-stage needed supplies in anticipation of the price increase. With strong 'gouging' laws, there is no incentive to spend money on preparing the supply chain or in spending more money to overcome supply diff…

If every store tripled the price of bottled water you would have truckloads of water arriving within 24 hours with absolutely no government intervention at all

In post hurricane road conditions? You don't live in New York, do you?

If the price of water tripled, a decent section of the population would struggle to afford it. That is the start and end of that debate, as far as I am concerned. I believe in the free market up until it starts starving people.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#152

Post by gwright »

untog wrote: post #141
viggity wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is either Higher Prices, or ZERO availability. I'll opt for the former.

Why do you assume that? During Sandy there was plenty of water to go around, and supplies were delivered. There was availability. Maybe if some asshole bought all the supplies available in a store then there might a be a problem, but guess what- no-one did. If that situation had persisted it would actually be one of the rare situations where rationing makes sense- and that rationing would logically be controlled by t…

If there was plenty of water and supplies were delivered, then there would be no incentive for the price increase and no need to have a law about it.

During Sandy, much of the price 'gouging' discussion was regarding gas supplies. The effect of price gouging laws was that people who had time waited in line and then sold their tank of gas on the secondary market where the price gouging law was not followed.

It is really hard to make the laws of supply and demand obey legislative commands.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#153

Post by LanceH »

kalleboo wrote: post #89
oleganza wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government is just an abstraction. There were early taxi companies that lobbied for a monopoly for themselves. They asked for laws to establish a hard limit on number of licenses available. Then, they cashed out nicely because supply of taxis was limited with police force, but demand was growing. Later taxi drivers just had to buy the permit and now they are also interested in keeping the existing laws (or they lose…

Except none of this is true in this case - Sweden. The only regulation in place is consumer protection (driver's licenses, reputable businesses, regulated taximeter, comparison prices posted on the cars). There's nothing protecting driver's interests.

So variable pricing is regulated out of market is what you're saying.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#154

Post by ewalk153 »

matthiasl wrote: post #26
andrewcooke wrote: post #2

this approach has worked well for uber in the usa. wonder if they've made a mistake by assuming that anti-govt sentiment in other countries is similar? or by simply copying the technique without thinking? but this is from a single english-language post. what is the rest of the local reaction like? [ah, see reply below - i missed "response was huge" (in the sense of support for uber)]

I'm a local. This is the first time I've heard of Uber, so in a sense the PR has worked. Looking at the 20 or so comments (in Swedish) below Uber's original press release/blog entry ( http://blog.uber.com/2013/04/25/transportstyrelsen-forsoker-... ), they're almost all opposed to part or all of Uber's post. The biggest non-tabloid newspaper, DN, hasn't mentioned Uber at all. The next biggest, SvD, hasn't mentioned th…

I know for a fact that Uber has encountered resistance in Paris for not complying with local transportation-for-hire laws.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#155

Post by Ensorceled »

scott_s wrote: post #123
dantheman wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The certified tamper-proof meter... and the sticker in the window. You're using an app to arrange transport. All of the information you need is there.

They have not, however, made any attempt to get the app approved to serve that function.

Not necessary ... it's MY app. The problem with not having approved and sealed meters is that I don't know if you've screwed with it or not. I know driver hasn't screwed with my iPhone app.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#156

Post by gw »

Nursie wrote: post #131
gw wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the article doesn't get into your purported statistics, I can only speculate as to what you are referring to. People in the U.S. often try to retroactively justify tougher drug laws by pointing to lower crime rates, when in fact often times people are simply less likely to report being victimized because they were engaging in an illegal transaction. Moreover, reality has a way of resisting controlled experiment…

And you simply asserting that the economic incentives that do underly the drug market apply everywhere is every bit as arbitrary! Drugs are not like cabs. You can't get a licensed drug after five minutes wait. Nobody actually wants or needs a specifically illegal cab, they just want a cab. The analogy simply does not work. What's unconvincing is you calling my argument a fallacy and then falling back to "oh but it's…

It isn't arbitrary to assert the universality of economic laws -- no school of economics holds otherwise. In fact the entire point of this science is to discover principles that exist in all circumstances.

Moreover asserting the difficulty of empirical measurement isn't a cop-out; it's one of the most fundamental debates, not just in economics, but in philosophy. This is Plato vs Aristotle, or Kant vs Hegel. It's an incredibly important issue and not one to dismiss so nonchalantly.

Regarding the likelihood of reporting assault, I was specifically talking about drugs. You are probably right about the unlicensed taxi customers, but nevertheless the statistics for taxi assaults don't tell then whole story because there is no way to account for assaults that occurred elsewhere that would have occurred in taxis has they been more readily available. Even if that data were available, the uncontrollability of other factors would continue to burden your attempts at empirical proof.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#158

Post by seanica »

geon wrote: post #148
jdminhbg wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization ... > we take a slightly more nuanced view Yeah, sure sounds like it.

> ...to the role of government regulation. What did he write that conflicts with this?

"tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization". ...is hardly nuanced parlance.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#159

Post by scott_s »

Ensorceled wrote: post #155
scott_s wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have not, however, made any attempt to get the app approved to serve that function.

Not necessary ... it's MY app. The problem with not having approved and sealed meters is that I don't know if you've screwed with it or not. I know driver hasn't screwed with my iPhone app.

Which is a great argument to make, but you still have to make the argument. As I understand it, they have not attempted to do so.

Re: Uber Stockholm throw a PR-tantrum when refused unfair advantages

#160

Post by king_jester »

gwright wrote: post #146
untog wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Price "gouging" is actually a public service, it LITERALLY SAVES LIVES. It ensures that needed materials find their way to the people that need them the most. Seriously? The lower income people living on Staten Island during Sandy would like a word with you. Price gouging ensures that things are only available to people with excess income to absorb the gouged price. The whole point about price gouging during Sandy is…

If every store tripled the price of bottled water you would have truckloads of water arriving within 24 hours with absolutely no government intervention at all. It would also mean that smart entrepreneurs would pre-stage needed supplies in anticipation of the price increase. With strong 'gouging' laws, there is no incentive to spend money on preparing the supply chain or in spending more money to overcome supply diff…

> If every store tripled the price of bottled water you would have truckloads of water arriving within 24 hours with absolutely no government intervention at all.

In natural disaster scenarios, this is likely impossible as delivery infrastructure usually goes down for some period of time. This is why price gouging is successful for the businesses raising prices in first place.

> It would also mean that smart entrepreneurs would pre-stage needed supplies in anticipation of the price increase.

Businesses do not do a good job of stockpiling resources for exceptional events that happen once in many years and many businesses view this as a cost that is not worth paying.

> With strong 'gouging' laws, there is no incentive to spend money on preparing the supply chain or in spending more money to overcome supply difficulties (i.e diverting supplies from elsewhere, rushing delivery, etc)

There is no incentive in general since there is an very low probability that work on on delivery and supply channels will actually pay off as it is a low probability that a disaster scenario will happen in the first place.

> With strong 'gouging' laws, there is no incentive to spend money on preparing the supply chain or in spending more money to overcome supply difficulties (i.e diverting supplies from elsewhere, rushing delivery, etc)

Most historical examples of price gouging never worked out this way. On a logic basis, this doesn't make sense as the point of price gouging is to maximize revenue from sale during a short window of time while new supplies and materials cannot make it to the area where you are selling the now highly priced goods.

Post reply on HN