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

31–40 of 147 posts

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

#31

Post by justincormack »

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.

Well arguably in parts of the US it is there due to restrictive practises. Much of the rest of the world has much more deregulated taxi services, with some regulation around non ripoff pricing and safety from being attacked by drivers being the main concerns.

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

#32

Post by dchest »

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…

How can it be that it's perfectly valid to "question the current regime" and "the way it all works", but not the existence of licenses? Did you just randomly defined bounds of the discussion that we can have, and called everything outside of those bounds dangerously ignorant?

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

#33

Post by orbifold »

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.

So you prefer a multinational corporation over local small / medium companies? That does really make no sense, this is not same as non licensed drivers operating in third world countries, who at least keep most their profits for themselves.

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

#34

Post by hobs »

dchest wrote: post #30
FollowSteph3 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? There's a reason licenses exist.

I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? Correct.

You have to have more to say than no one should be licensed for anything, that is a ridiculous proposition.

No licensed electricians? Sorry your house is on fire!

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

#35

Post by humanrebar »

valarauca1 wrote: post #11
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.

>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…

Nothing about laissez-faire precludes insurance and bonding. If anything the very non-laissez-faire phenomenon of bankruptcy is what makes an insurance mandate necessary. Not that I'm against bankruptcy laws in general. I'm just pointing out that personal liability is hardly unregulated.

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

#36

Post by colinbartlett »

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!

This kind of asymmetry is usual. "Littering is punishable by up to $500 fine or 6 months in prison." - that sort of thing I've seen a zillion times.

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

#37

Post by wozniacki »

gnu8 wrote: post #29
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.

The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service. The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for the…

I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time.

Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they have a stranglehold on affairs - seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers.

As a disinterested observer, I ask this in good faith :

Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons?

Are they not just self-serving instruments and political vote banks?

I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer.

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

#38

Post by matthewmacleod »

dchest wrote: post #32
matthewmacleod wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How can it be that it's perfectly valid to "question the current regime" and "the way it all works", but not the existence of licenses? Did you just randomly defined bounds of the discussion that we can have, and called everything outside of those bounds dangerously ignorant?

No. Blanket rejection of the existence of licenses – "There's absolutely no justification for requiring a licence" – is not useful at all. There are, objectively, justifications for requiring a license.

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

#39

Post by humanrebar »

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?

If you want a light touch regulation from the government about this, you might want to figure out a simple way to let riders know about the licensing and bonding of the taxi and/or driver. And presuming that forces all taxis to have insurance, the information asymmetry problem is solved because the insurance company will have much more information about safety.

To be clear, there is certainly information asymmetry around the insurance and bonding levels of a cab. And it's way too expensive to investigate before getting in the cab. It would be cheaper to just hire a car service.

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

#40

Post by brokenmusic »

hobs wrote: post #34
dchest wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I shouldn't need a license to drive either, or to do anything I want should I? Correct.

You have to have more to say than no one should be licensed for anything, that is a ridiculous proposition. No licensed electricians? Sorry your house is on fire!

Exactly, my house, not yours. That's why I'm responsible for choosing a reputable electrician, not you.
Post reply on HN