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

221–230 of 261 posts

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

#221

Post by willurd »

pg wrote: post #212
onemorepassword wrote: post #95

The more I hear about Uber, the more it seems to be a tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization instead of a disruptive start-up. This kind of thing might fly in the US, but in most of Western Europe we take a slightly more nuanced view to the role of government regulation. Doesn't mean there isn't anything worth disrupting, hell no (somebody please disrupt the Amsterdam taxi market),…

Far from it. Uber is a remarkably professionally run company that has transformed transportation in the US cities where it operates. I'm surprised (or more precisely, dismayed) that a comment with such comically excessive language received so many upvotes. This is how a forum turns into a self-caricature.

I wish I was surprised. Frankly, I've come to expect that type of reaction to anything that challenges the establishment.

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

#222

Post by gwright »

untog wrote: post #151
gwright wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mark…

You are viewing this as a static situation (i.e. the price will stay high) and ignoring other ways for people in need to be assisted. Ensuring a shortage (by limiting price) isn't helpful.

Let the price float as needed and if you feel like some people are being priced out of the market, give them cash for them to spend as needed. Some people will need water. Other people will need food. Some folks will have both and instead will spend the money on gas for their generator.

Emergency cash assistance is a much better way to assist those in need and ensure that the market will rapidly adjust to provide resources in the right quantity and right location (due the the pricing signals).

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

#223

Post by willurd »

Uchikoma wrote: post #195
_delirium wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the angle of an Ayn-Rand-quoting American who sees himself as Galt won't play quite as well in Sweden, either...

What I find funny - and I like a lot of Rand, though I've understood the books completely different as most Americans - is that many of the Americans that quote and evangelize Rand would be "parasites" in a Galt world, e.g. all the Republican politicians who never produced or created anything in the Galt sense and are paid by the state.

Let's be honest with ourselves. There are plenty of Democratic politicians who, also, have never produced anything and are paid by the state.

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

#225

Post by [deleted] »

noonespecial wrote: post #126
onemorepassword wrote: post #95

The more I hear about Uber, the more it seems to be a tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization instead of a disruptive start-up. This kind of thing might fly in the US, but in most of Western Europe we take a slightly more nuanced view to the role of government regulation. Doesn't mean there isn't anything worth disrupting, hell no (somebody please disrupt the Amsterdam taxi market),…

If the devil didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Uber was built from the ground up to tangle with cantankerous and corrupt authorities whose first impulse is to outlaw it. Even if that enemy turns out not to exist, they operate as if it does. Its their nature.

[deleted]

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

#226

Post by gwright »

freshhawk wrote: post #210
gwright wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 You mean "According to my preferred economic ideology if every store tripled the price of bottled water you should have ...", because it's fairly easy to check the historical records and see that this is definitely not what actually happens. But by all means…

Really? There is no historical record of the market responding to increased prices?

You are either trolling or economically ignorant.

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

#227

Post by chrisrhoden »

brazzy wrote: post #204
chrisrhoden wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty clear that the email that was sent out was not written in the way that it should have been, and that they may have misjudged both the source of the friction they are encountering and the public sentiment about such regulations. We're sort of arguing past eachother on the other point. If we agree that Uber isn't out to rip people off and their customers like the way that they do business, why shoul…

> Part of what they offer is the appearance at your destination of having been delivered by a private driver. Honest question: why would anyone care about that at all?

I don't know, but it's completely irrelevant. I don't understand why people care about the color of their hair enough to dye it, but it seems to matter to some people, and if it matters to people that matter to you, then I guess it matters to you as well.

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

#228

Post by cobrausn »

pg wrote: post #212
onemorepassword wrote: post #95

The more I hear about Uber, the more it seems to be a tea-party style paranoid right-wing anti big evil government organization instead of a disruptive start-up. This kind of thing might fly in the US, but in most of Western Europe we take a slightly more nuanced view to the role of government regulation. Doesn't mean there isn't anything worth disrupting, hell no (somebody please disrupt the Amsterdam taxi market),…

Far from it. Uber is a remarkably professionally run company that has transformed transportation in the US cities where it operates. I'm surprised (or more precisely, dismayed) that a comment with such comically excessive language received so many upvotes. This is how a forum turns into a self-caricature.

It seems purpose built to garner upvotes from many of those who frequent HN - insults the American right wing while praising European level-headedness and rationalism. Add in a final parting shot at American stereotypes and I'm not surprised at all I found it at the top.

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

#229

Post by chrisrhoden »

rdouble wrote: post #209
chrisrhoden wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty clear that the email that was sent out was not written in the way that it should have been, and that they may have misjudged both the source of the friction they are encountering and the public sentiment about such regulations. We're sort of arguing past eachother on the other point. If we agree that Uber isn't out to rip people off and their customers like the way that they do business, why shoul…

Part of what they offer is the appearance at your destination of having been delivered by a private driver. Uber X and Uber Taxi are just Priuses and regular taxis.

I'm not sure what you're driving at. Visit their website. See where the only words on the page are, "Everyone's Private Driver™"? I think it's pretty clear what they're selling.

And in the case of Uber Taxi, they comply with all legal requirements for a Taxi service.

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

#230

Post by chrisrhoden »

jbooth wrote: post #205
chrisrhoden wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty clear that the email that was sent out was not written in the way that it should have been, and that they may have misjudged both the source of the friction they are encountering and the public sentiment about such regulations. We're sort of arguing past eachother on the other point. If we agree that Uber isn't out to rip people off and their customers like the way that they do business, why shoul…

why should they need to change? If you acknowledge that the changes required are superficial, why are they required? If they're superficial, why can't Uber just play ball? I can't disconnect my electricity meter and install a more accurate one of my choosing, even if that leads to me paying more in utilities. Some things are standard just because it makes it easier for people to tell that nobody's breaking the rules.

Because these superficial changes are part of the package that they're selling. They've got charters (or whatever) in cities all over the world and their first product was a livery without the scheduling nonsense and with a pretty reasonable price. Telling them that the thing that they want to sell is against regulations is fine, but saying that those regulations exist strictly to protect against bad actors and that exemptions are granted for everyone else is the same as saying that you think that they are bad actors. And in that case, asking people to sign a petition saying that they're not is completely reasonable.
Post reply on HN