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

The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

blog.priceonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 219 posts

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#121

Post by dejfpjofew »

baddox wrote: post #120
argumentum wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lincoln's strategy itself was "required* because slave-owners and slave-owning states would not give up their slaves without a fight. Blame them, not Lincoln. Lincoln himself was well aware of the costs that would be imposed by war, but chose this course of action due to the absurdly perverse nature of slavery. http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

I don't doubt that Lincoln personally resolved his internal ethical dilemmas, but I do doubt that this would be any consolation to me if I were forced to fight in an army.

Are you some kind of nigger lover?

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#122

Post by malandrew »

JackFr wrote: post #53
chaz wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of origins, I think there's still an important role for city governments to manage the number of cars on the street. NPR Planet Money did a story about the effect of NYC's planned +2,000 cabs (in additional to the existing 13,200) will have on the city: shorter wait times, but longer drive times for everyone. If the story is correct, more deregulation with more cars on the street without other measures (su…

It's far from obvious that demand has outstripped supply. The population of Manhattan was significantly higher in 1937 than it is now 1.9 million vs. 1.6 million. On a population basis it would seem that we would need fewer rather than more cabs. What drives the demand for cabs is the the price of a ride versus the alternative. If the regulated fare is low relative to subways & buses and the overall price level, cabs…

What I don't get is why a city as dense as NYC supports any transportation method that puts a few individuals above the public good. Cars in a dense urban area epitomize the tragedy of the commons. Buses and delivery trucks are the only vehicles that must have access to the street. Everyone else should be walking, taking public transportation, or bicycling.

Not having to wait on a street corner for a crosswalk signal or only doing so sparingly would save NYCs on average more time than the occasional taxi ride. On top of that, the absence of cabs would set many minds on the problem of moving all New Yorkers around the city as fast as possible. If you're rich and you think that your time is valuable, then vote for spending on public transportation innovations that benefit everyone equally.

If you eliminate cars and time truck deliveries well, you can engineer a transportation system that runs like a well engineered clock with many complications. Cars are responsible for most of the non-detrminism in a public transportation system.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#123

Post by alwaysdoit »

YokoZar wrote: post #103
codex wrote: post #87

Medallions exist for a very good reason: they prevent a tragedy of the commons from creating gridlock and pollution in major cities by limiting the number of cars circling around doing nothing on city streets. Most of the time, cabs just drive around waiting for a fare. This is because cabs are often hailed when they are seen, but even if a cab is summoned by a phone call (or smartphone) the closet cab to the fare is…

If you want to limit congestion, price congestion. Don't limit taxis, the right to drive people, the right to drive a car ending with a particular license plate number, or the amount of fuel available (all have been tried to reduce traffic) -- just make the roads themselves cost more when there are more cars on them, and make the roads cost less when there aren't.

And here I thought you were going to propose a solution? The implementation of "make the roads themselves cost more" is empirically non-trivial.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#124

Post by makomk »

aetherson wrote: post #60
bcgraham wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's the only type of home on the market!

Well, argumentum's point is that presumably there is some cost at which the ground holder would sell the land. Like, if the ground rental brings in $10,000 per year to the owner of the title, and I came along and said, "I will pay your $1,000,000 for the title," well... I'm offering you one century's worth of ground-use fees up-front. Presumably all but the most irrational actors would sell their ground.

I suspect you'll find the economics are such that most home owners wouldn't be able to afford to buy the land their house is on.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#125

Post by omonra »

jbooth wrote: post #110
larrys wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How might you propose to compensate people who, in good faith, bought other people" Seriously? You're making that comparison?

It's like godwin's law squared. Maybe because I'm american or maybe because the hitler comparison is cliche, but I'm more insulted by spurious comparison to a slave-owner than I am to Hitler.

You have every right to be offended or insulted.

But it makes no difference to the validity of the argument presented.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#126

Post by bickfordb »

codex wrote: post #87

Medallions exist for a very good reason: they prevent a tragedy of the commons from creating gridlock and pollution in major cities by limiting the number of cars circling around doing nothing on city streets. Most of the time, cabs just drive around waiting for a fare. This is because cabs are often hailed when they are seen, but even if a cab is summoned by a phone call (or smartphone) the closet cab to the fare is…

These new systems exclusively use smartphones to hail cabs. Cabs don't need to circle to find fares. This is much more efficient than the medallion system

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#127

Post by brc »

seanalltogether wrote: post #49
pg wrote: post #2

Structurally this practice is a lot like the preindustrial precursor of taxation, when governments would sell monopolies on the import or production of things in exchange for a lump sum. When obsolete government practices persist, they tend to be pretty sinister.

I've brought this up in another thread, but over in the UK, due to a lack of property taxes, its possible to purchase a home, yet stil have to pay a yearly ground rent to a private party. The cost to own land in nothing, so there's little incentive to ever sell it, and instead lease it out. People may complain about property taxes in the USA, but it prevents this very practice from happening. It would be better for e…

In practice, though, it's not that different to property taxes, just that the land is owned by some lord instead of the central government. The effect is just the same. Nobody really owns their land, whether leasehold or freehold. Ownership is really just a right to exclusive use in the best case.

As the old saying goes, if you want to know who really owns your land, stop paying taxes and find out.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#128

Post by jbooth »

omonra wrote: post #125
jbooth wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's like godwin's law squared. Maybe because I'm american or maybe because the hitler comparison is cliche, but I'm more insulted by spurious comparison to a slave-owner than I am to Hitler.

You have every right to be offended or insulted. But it makes no difference to the validity of the argument presented.

Well the argument is clearly invalid. Slave owners??

But there's a difference between lousy analogies that further debate through clarification and lousy analogies that lead to everyone telling each other fuck you.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#129

Post by jbooth »

argumentum wrote: post #96
larrys wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How might you propose to compensate people who, in good faith, bought other people" Seriously? You're making that comparison?

I'm comparing the logic , not the gravity of the situations. You had pointed out (rightly) that purchasing and holding medallions is legal, and those who bought them did so with the understanding that they would profit. At the same time, they must have observed that the very existence of the medallion system limited the freedom of others. Some might have even genuinely viewed this as altruistic. All that was true of…

Driving taxis isn't a crime against humanity.

Your argument is that requiring medallions to drive a taxi (which I agree has become an inefficient and slightly corrupt situation) is in any way comparable to slavery is an insult to anybody who's ever read any history.

Re: The Tyranny of Taxi Medallions

#130

Post by brc »

codex wrote: post #87

Medallions exist for a very good reason: they prevent a tragedy of the commons from creating gridlock and pollution in major cities by limiting the number of cars circling around doing nothing on city streets. Most of the time, cabs just drive around waiting for a fare. This is because cabs are often hailed when they are seen, but even if a cab is summoned by a phone call (or smartphone) the closet cab to the fare is…

I find this a very weak argument. You're essentially saying that we have to limit car usage because too many cars cause congestion.

Congestion has an explicit cost (wasted time) even if it is not priced in with some artifical time-of-use payment.

Ultimately people will get onto the road one way or another if they need to get somewhere at a set time. So by limiting cab licences, all you are doing is limiting the mix of cabs vs other cars. You can't honestly say that, at 5pm on a Friday afternoon, people are going to not catch a flight to the airport because there aren't enough cabs. They'll either order a town car (a different type of cab) or they will get a lift. Limiting the number of taxis is a very poor proxy for limiting congestion.

The issue of empty cabs driving around is spurious because it is explicitly fixed by the technology. If that's what the purpose of limited taxi licensing really was, there would be a different solution in place than limiting the overall number of cabs.

NYC might have said they're trying to limit congestion, but I think that's a very naive view of the situation where vested interests are clearly benefitting from a government-granted monopoly. Even if you rule out corruption, the status quo doesn't affect the people choosing the medallion numbers, so I doubt they would see a need for change.

Post reply on HN