141–150 of 177 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The key difference being that in the case of Uber, those VCs and investors gave their money voluntarily.
Presumably (hopefully) the socialist government for this hypothetical nation would have been voluntarily put in place by the voting public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Voluntarily, but not without expectation of recompense. At some point the monopoly will start focusing on another source of money...
The entirety of capitalism is voluntary transactions with expectation of recompense. I'm not sure what your point is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they won't face a steeper uphill battle. They'll have a much easier time: legislation will be clearer, drivers will already be driving for uber so installing another app is trivial, riders will already be familiar with app-hailed rides and so installing another app is trivial.
These are good points, but at the end of the day, a provider is going to have to pay out to drivers (and collect fares). Uber will be difficult to compete with on price for the exact same reasons that Walmart and Amazon are difficult to undercut consistently.
Uber has taken $12B of capital, broken the regulatory regimes and opened the drive-for-hire markets, marketed the benefits of drive-for-hire and ride-sharing to drivers and consumers, and helped drivers finance vehicles – but now there seems to be no barrier to entry for any competing service except writing an app. I'm happy to let VCs pay for my comfortable daily ride to work but I don't see how this is sustainable.…
Uber has taken $12B of capital, broken the regulatory regimes and opened the drive-for-hire markets, marketed the benefits of drive-for-hire and ride-sharing to drivers and consumers, and helped drivers finance vehicles – but now there seems to be no barrier to entry for any competing service except writing an app. I'm happy to let VCs pay for my comfortable daily ride to work but I don't see how this is sustainable.…
1. This exact program they're launching helps build a barrier (subscription) 2. Uber Pool requires a large number of drivers and customers to make it work. This is a real network effect and benefit, as having 2-3 customers in a car is more efficient than 1. This requires having other customers on a similiar route. 3. Customers want the closest car to them, meaning the company with the most cars gets a benefit 4. Ther…
The copy on this page is super unclear. I just realized(after signing up) that the subscription is to get the special $2/ride pricing, not the actual ride. Put another way: after you have the $30/month subscription, you can get UberPools for $2/ride.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I think barrier to entry is misunderstood as a technical attribute of a company. Of course it's possible to build some app that tells people nearby to pick them up with metering/billing services built in. From a business standpoint, it would almost be impossible to duplicate what they have today.
I entirely disagree. I don't see proprietary technology that can't be duplicated or bought. I see _some_ network effects but ultimately the drivers will go to the highest bidder and the riders will go to the lowest price. I see _some_ brand equity, but not much. Maybe a little economy of scale, but not much. Yes, they have a head start, but they are far from enthroned. Ultimately, this space will operationalize out t…
Assuming, of course, the fleet cap- and opex makes autonomous vehicles a more profitable proposition than driver share without fleet costs, and it gives them a competitive advantage over smaller autonomous taxi fleets. I'm curious what their internal projections look like in that regard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably (hopefully) the socialist government for this hypothetical nation would have been voluntarily put in place by the voting public.
LOL. Go look at Europe. The answer to that is a definite hell-no.
I wish people had the balls to stand behind their politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Socialists have historically been some of the biggest proponents of democracy. You're probably trolling, but it'd be amusing to know which countries you think have socialist governments in place by force.
Perhaps you have heard of the People's Democratic Republics of East Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, and Albania? Socialism was imposed by a foreign occupying army. Or take the Soviet Union itself. The democratically elected Provisional Government was overthrown by force. Even the socialists-only Constituent Assembly election was simply voided and ignored by t…
Pretty much ANY political system gains power through bloodshed. The United States, Canada, England, France, Germany, pretty much the entirety of South America, Africa and Asia... With the wide ranges of political systems that span all these places, each and every one of them was put in place by violence.
You point out the horrible regimes that adopted the word "Socialist" or "People's" in their name and point out all the atrocities that they have committed. While adopting those monickers != actual socialism, you've headed off that argument, so I'll give you that. However, don't lay violence as a means of gripping power at the feet of Socialism... That's a human trait.