But this really comes down to voting. Why does a better funded candidate win? Because a TV ad convinced some idiot to vote for that candidate? I see informercials and "work from home and make millions" scams all the time. But I don't buy the product whatever it might be. Yet voters seemingly are completely ignorant. So candidates who are well funded by special interests end up winning. But often these anti-competitive practices are in primarily Democrat controlled areas. Uber is a great example: Austin, DC city councils for example are entirely Democrat and thus beholder to "labor" and anti-competitive practices. This isn't exclusively a democrat practice, however much of the time it is. The NY and San Francisco war against AirBnB for example is about collecting more taxes. The anti-competitive closed-shop system is entirely democrat supported. The endless taxes and regulation of business is a democrat obsession. Certain national democrats sometimes go against the trend, especially the tech-oriented. But the boots on the ground Democrats are especially prone to anti-competitive tendencies. Protectionism is a hallmark of the AFL-CIO and they completely support (and significantly fund) the Democrat party. I'm not saying "Republicans are good," there are plenty of shit Republicans, however philosophically, Democrats are anti-competitive by nature because the concept of the free market goes against their core values of so-called 'economic justice.' Honestly ask yourself, if this Tesla decision were in the hands of Rand Paul or John Conyers, who would be more likely to support the free market in this situation? Would Ronald Reagan be more likely to support Tesla that Obama? Almost certainly, based on their records. Obama for instance through his supporters on the NLRB have opposed companies such as Boeing to build non-Union factories -- which is in-effect the same thing we have with Tesla -- an attempt to maintain a type of monopoly and artificially constrain the free market in order to serve a specific narrow group of voters and interests. That's what's happening here: the auto dealers, just like the AFL-CIO did with Boeing, are attempting to artificially protect their monopoly position, to the detriment of the population as a whole. I know this comment won't win me many friends here, but I hope that everyone at least researches guys like Rand Paul -- not the propaganda (in either direction) but what he actually says and stands for. If we can get more politicians like him, then perhaps we can start to realize that we can have freer markets, more personal freedoms and perhaps a government that knows when to get out of the way (and knows when to get in the way.) If anyone has the time or the inclination, read the book 'Economics in One Lesson.'
A Raw Deal in Michigan
11–20 of 201 posts
Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
The costs of this legislation are distributed across all consumers, while the benefits are concentrated in the hands of a small group of automobile dealers. This gives the dealers a large incentive to lobby politicians, and little incentive for consumers to pay attention and vote accordingly. This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. On the bright side, in the l…
>This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. It isn't though. Governments are in conflict with Uber because of things like Uber drivers not being insured. The German government wants Uber to ensure that their drivers are insured. Uber refused to do that. That is why Uber was 'banned'. Uninsured drivers is a cost spread across society, but the gains are concentrate…
Uber drivers are insured. It's a requirement to drive a car. The opposition to Uber is because te cities lose out on the punitively expensive tax medallion revenue.
Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
The costs of this legislation are distributed across all consumers, while the benefits are concentrated in the hands of a small group of automobile dealers. This gives the dealers a large incentive to lobby politicians, and little incentive for consumers to pay attention and vote accordingly. This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. On the bright side, in the l…
>This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. It isn't though. Governments are in conflict with Uber because of things like Uber drivers not being insured. The German government wants Uber to ensure that their drivers are insured. Uber refused to do that. That is why Uber was 'banned'. Uninsured drivers is a cost spread across society, but the gains are concentrate…
You seem to have your facts wrong.
https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/articles/202347808-In-the-...
Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tesla's rivals are big employers in Michigan. That is also a factor, their employee's have only experienced the positive side of protectionism.
It's possible the Big 3 would actually prefer a Tesla-like direct-to-consumer model; for example, Chrysler tried opening a Chrysler-owned store in LA a few years ago, only to have it shot down by local law. I'd imagine that if one of the Big 3 started doing direct sales, dealers would stop selling their cars en masse. There's no way for an established manufacturer to stop selling to dealers.
The dealers are probably big employers in Michigan too!
Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. It isn't though. Governments are in conflict with Uber because of things like Uber drivers not being insured. The German government wants Uber to ensure that their drivers are insured. Uber refused to do that. That is why Uber was 'banned'. Uninsured drivers is a cost spread across society, but the gains are concentrate…
Uber drivers are insured. It's a requirement to drive a car. The opposition to Uber is because te cities lose out on the punitively expensive tax medallion revenue.
Standard insurance policies have restrictions that exclude driving other people for money. As soon as you do that, your insurance policy is invalid and you're driving uninsured. (Also, I believe Germany has specific minimum insurance requirements in law for taxi drivers and equivalents.)
Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. It isn't though. Governments are in conflict with Uber because of things like Uber drivers not being insured. The German government wants Uber to ensure that their drivers are insured. Uber refused to do that. That is why Uber was 'banned'. Uninsured drivers is a cost spread across society, but the gains are concentrate…
You seem to have your facts wrong. https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/articles/202347808-In-the-... http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance
I'm talking about the case in Germany. Why are you linking to articles that start with the words "In The US"?
This is the kind of blind defence of Uber that gives the entire tech sector a bad name.
Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. It isn't though. Governments are in conflict with Uber because of things like Uber drivers not being insured. The German government wants Uber to ensure that their drivers are insured. Uber refused to do that. That is why Uber was 'banned'. Uninsured drivers is a cost spread across society, but the gains are concentrate…
Uber drivers are insured. It's a requirement to drive a car. The opposition to Uber is because te cities lose out on the punitively expensive tax medallion revenue.
Can you provide a reliable source that German Uber driver carry commercial insurance?
While you're right that in order to drive a car you need insurance such insurance is personal and never pays for damage, which results from commercial transactions.
Note also that there's a difference in third party liability insurance between the US and Europe. While In the US the person usually carries insurance, which is also valid when she, say, rents a car, this is not the case in Europe. The insurance is bound to the vehicle and not the person.
I for one, would be very, very vary to take an Uber anywhere in Europe unless the company can prove beyond a doubt that they, or the driver carries adequate insurance to cover any damages to me, or my property.
Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is the same reason Uber is facing a lot of flak right now from governments around the world. It isn't though. Governments are in conflict with Uber because of things like Uber drivers not being insured. The German government wants Uber to ensure that their drivers are insured. Uber refused to do that. That is why Uber was 'banned'. Uninsured drivers is a cost spread across society, but the gains are concentrate…
You seem to have your facts wrong. https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/articles/202347808-In-the-... http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance
It's more complicated than that, insurance was a big issue in Germany. There is a mandatory minimum of 7.5 million EUR for damages to persons in Germany, the insurance offered by Uber was lower than that according to the news a while back.
There were also other issues in Germany like the mandatory health check for taxi drivers and the shorter intervals for the mandatory car maintenance for taxis.
Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to have your facts wrong. https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/articles/202347808-In-the-... http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance
I'm talking about the case in Germany. Why are you linking to articles that start with the words "In The US"? This is the kind of blind defence of Uber that gives the entire tech sector a bad name.
Well, my mistake then. Where is your evidence that Uber drivers in Germany are uninsured? That seems implausible.
Re: A Raw Deal in Michigan
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to have your facts wrong. https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/articles/202347808-In-the-... http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance
It's more complicated than that, insurance was a big issue in Germany. There is a mandatory minimum of 7.5 million EUR for damages to persons in Germany, the insurance offered by Uber was lower than that according to the news a while back. There were also other issues in Germany like the mandatory health check for taxi drivers and the shorter intervals for the mandatory car maintenance for taxis.
Ah, ok. Some of those regulations sound quite absurd to me, but I'm not familiar enough with the situation to comment.