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

Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 147 posts

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#11

Post by valarauca1 »

brokenmusic wrote: post #6
debacle wrote: post #2

> “Uber does not believe it is appropriate for authorities to seek to punish drivers who are trying to make a living through this service,” Uber said in today’s e-mail. Uber needs to slow down the spin. It might work in metros in the US, but it's not going to work in Seoul.

It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.

>If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.

No but you should be properly insured and bonded to prevent client liability. You can argue Laissez-faire, but we tried that in the 1860-1890's and it really sucked. We collectively decided individual safety is worth more then a fatter wallet.

Your argument works from an Objectivist stand point, but Objectivism doesn't work in the real world.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#12

Post by saalweachter »

jastr wrote: post #3

"...will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905)..." "The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won..." So the fine would be at most ~$20,000. That seems low compared to 2 years in jail!

Do convicts in South Korea get a choice? I'm assuming the judge decrees a sentence and the convicted serve it, not that you're given the choice between going to jail and paying a fine.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#13

Post by jfoster »

cpplinuxdude wrote: post #5

> "worries over the safety of consumers" Can't consumers decide what their safety requirements are? If they prefer a different service, for safety reasons, can't they just use that service instead?

Of course they could. This is about revenue. Governments don't make nearly as much money from Uber as they do from taxis. There's the licensing factor, but there's also the way the service is taxed. UberX drivers pay personal income tax, but in most cases are probably not companies, so they probably don't pay company tax. Even Uber's cut of each ride probably isn't recorded as revenue of the local Uber entity, assuming Uber uses the same structure as most other large tech companies.

Long story short, governments are losing a lot of revenue due to Uber and (similarly) Airbnb. Consumers won't abide that as a reason for shutting Uber down, though, so they claim it's less safe. Taxi companies are happy to play along with that.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#14

Post by austerity »

noelwelsh wrote: post #9
cpplinuxdude wrote: post #5

> "worries over the safety of consumers" Can't consumers decide what their safety requirements are? If they prefer a different service, for safety reasons, can't they just use that service instead?

Not really, because of information asymmetry. Users of taxi services, like users of medicine, are vastly less informed about the quality of the service than those that provide it. Contrary to Uber's propaganda, legislation around taxis is not there, for the most part, to increase the revenue of taxi operators.

I don't understand your analogy to medical service. Surely I can assess the quality of taxi service I just received to the highest degree imaginable. And we now have fantastic systems in place to spread this information (e.g. Yelp, Facebook, etc.).

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#16

Post by valarauca1 »

Shizka wrote: post #4

> "[...]from next week will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905) to people who provide information on Uber’s services. " > "The maximum penalty for Uber’s alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won[...]" Can anyone clarify this for me? I read it as two years in prison or pay a 20.000$ fine. The difference between two years in prison and 20.000$ seems very…

Like US law you can be fined for a crime OR serve time (proper Boolean or: one, the other, both). The fine/prison limits are maximum, and decided on sentencing.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#17

Post by matthewmacleod »

brokenmusic wrote: post #6
debacle wrote: post #2

> “Uber does not believe it is appropriate for authorities to seek to punish drivers who are trying to make a living through this service,” Uber said in today’s e-mail. Uber needs to slow down the spin. It might work in metros in the US, but it's not going to work in Seoul.

It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.

Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole.

It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand like this is purposefully, dangerously ignorant.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#18

Post by valarauca1 »

austerity wrote: post #14
noelwelsh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, because of information asymmetry. Users of taxi services, like users of medicine, are vastly less informed about the quality of the service than those that provide it. Contrary to Uber's propaganda, legislation around taxis is not there, for the most part, to increase the revenue of taxi operators.

I don't understand your analogy to medical service. Surely I can assess the quality of taxi service I just received to the highest degree imaginable. And we now have fantastic systems in place to spread this information (e.g. Yelp, Facebook, etc.).

Just because information can be disseminated to the general public does not mean that it is understood or acknowledged when making a decision.

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#19

Post by fennecfoxen »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #17
brokenmusic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works anywhere. Stupid state monopoly mafia trying to control how people are supposed to make money is scared. That's all there is to it. If I want to drive somebody and make money I don't need no licence. There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence.

Stop this Randian nonsense. There are perfectly valid reasons to regulate taxi services - such as ensuring that passengers are safe, or that they aren't ripped off. Those requirements are beneficial as a whole. It's perfectly valid to question whether or not the current regime in various places has been effective at achieving these goals. It's also fine to change the way it all works. But dismissing it out of hand li…

On the other hand, a blind devotion to the regulations in question without reference to passengers' overall well-being and ability to afford a ride is equally nonsense, and a common feature of the current regime's defense of itself. (For instance, when all the London taxi drivers were complaining about Uber using boring reasons about taximeters).

Re: Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service

#20

Post by 0x0 »

jfoster wrote: post #13
cpplinuxdude wrote: post #5

> "worries over the safety of consumers" Can't consumers decide what their safety requirements are? If they prefer a different service, for safety reasons, can't they just use that service instead?

Of course they could. This is about revenue. Governments don't make nearly as much money from Uber as they do from taxis. There's the licensing factor, but there's also the way the service is taxed. UberX drivers pay personal income tax, but in most cases are probably not companies, so they probably don't pay company tax. Even Uber's cut of each ride probably isn't recorded as revenue of the local Uber entity, assumi…

Many places tax personal income much more heavily than company income, so I'm not sure that argument is universal.
Post reply on HN