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

We must return to an economy fueled by innovation, rather than disruption

greg-satell.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 318 posts

Re: We must return to an economy fueled by innovation, rather than disruption

#301

Post by imtringued »

HPsquared wrote: post #70
IMSAI8080 wrote: post #8

I heard the problem expressed as a good ideas shortage versus too much investment capital. Interest rates have been incredibly low since the 2008 banking crash, so where does the spare capital go? There's not enough innovative ideas around (that investors like) to absorb the money. So some of the cash is getting thrown at complete nonsense and the remaining good ideas are receiving excessive capital. So there's a lot…

It sounds more like a banking problem than an innovation problem.

I don't know what you mean by banking problem but let me tell you the purpose of money once there are enough savings to fund every single investment. The money must be spent on something that is an end in itself i.e. consumption. All economic activity has the end goal of increasing the ability to consume. If you insist on saving and investing anyway then investment itself turns into consumption i.e. a recreational activity that costs money.

Re: We must return to an economy fueled by innovation, rather than disruption

#302

Post by Gareth321 »

taurath wrote: post #285
Gareth321 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Having taken a $30 Uber to drive 15 minutes lately, when a taxi would’ve cost $10 or so, I don’t think they’ve ultimately created much value with their rideshare service. They’ve basically just moved the entities around, and now it takes a lot longer to get a taxi. You forget just how terrible the taxi industry was prior to Uber. I would walk for miles rather than take a taxi. I would gladly pay 2-3x more for an Ube…

Do you have any examples what was better? Of the reasons I could think of that would constitute poor service, I've had as many Uber's just not show up as I've had taxis. I've had as many very poor drivers in Uber's as I've had in Taxis. The biggest thing I can think of is the average cleanliness of an uber is higher than a taxi. But like, the taxi meters are just so damn cheap compared to what ubers are nowadays, and…

Here is a taste of my bad experiences:

* "My card machine is out of order, only cash."

* "That will be $[some outrageous and clearly fake meter amount].

* "My meter is broken. I'll just estimate it."

* "There is a $10 surcharge for luggage" / "there is a $5 surcharge for that neighborhood" / there is a $10 surcharge for cards." Bonus points when they only tell you after you arrive.

* Driving me the long way. This happened ~25% of all of my trips. It was particularly egregious before mobile phone GPS became ubiquitous.

* Unsafe driving.

* Stinking / dirty taxis

* The cars took hours to arrive, and often never arrived at all. This is probably my biggest gripe. If there is one thing I require, it's efficient transport from A to B. If they can't even do this, they shouldn't be in business.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've had any of these issues with Uber. I do agree that the price gap between taxis and Uber is increasing, but I gladly pay it. As above, I would gladly pay 3x more for Uber, so until the price difference arrives there, I'm sticking with Uber.

Re: We must return to an economy fueled by innovation, rather than disruption

#303

Post by pydry »

Veelox wrote: post #256
skohan wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I agree with some of your points: I.e. I think people would generally agree the user experience of Uber is an improvement over taxis even if the labour conditions are a regression. The problem I see is that even the potential for disruption is consolidated in fewer and fewer hands. With IP law the way it is, Google and Apple acting as gatekeepers to mobile ecosystems, Amazon owning e-commerce and squeezing or comp…

> I think people would generally agree the user experience of Uber is an improvement over taxis even if the labour conditions are a regression. I am going to make my point bluntly. Do you think the people driving for Uber are dumb? Every time I see this kind of argument I feel like it removes any agency from the gig workers. The implication is "Uber's drivers don't understand they are getting screwed. We need to chan…

You dont need to be stupid to allow yourself to be exploited. Being poor is sufficient.

Re: We must return to an economy fueled by innovation, rather than disruption

#304

Post by throwaway0a5e »

Retric wrote: post #225
version_five wrote: post #171

Where I was during uber's ascent, uber's defining value proposition was circumventing the artificial monopoly created by the taxi medallion system. This "disruption" was actually great, it shook up an industry that needed shaking up (ironically I now use cabs because they have become better than uber where I am. This would not be the case if uber never existed). But even if it did some good "disrupting", I think the…

What’s missed in these discussions is these regulations had a point to them. It’s obvious Uber driving around without passengers increases congestion. Really look at AirBnb, Bird, etc and they all offload externalities from the company and it’s customers to everyone around them. When the basic building model is to break the law, chances are the law had a point and people are going to want a return to normal eventuall…

>What’s missed in these discussions is these regulations had a point to them

And what point would that be?

Satisfying some legislator's desire to show Karen they're "doing something"?

Raising the barrier to entry for new entrants?

Protecting people?

Everyone who has a poorly thought out regulatory knee-jerk reaction likes to imagine that it's all the 3rd option but there's a heck of a lot of the first and second sailing under the flag of the third and a heck of a lot of people who would rather just use some heuristic like "more laws, more paperwork, more license fees, more better" than actually think critically about all three options.

A critical mass of the general public assuming that every regulation's primary purpose was to protect people when created and that said purpose has stood the test of time is how you get crap like the taxi medallion system in the first place.

Re: We must return to an economy fueled by innovation, rather than disruption

#305

Post by coffeeblack »

diordiderot wrote: post #142
coffeeblack wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current president had been holding a position of power in Washington for 50 years. Same is true for many other top politicians. As long as you vote in the same people over and over again, nothing will change.

we have no choice. Only parties who support capital can muster the resources to run & win because of strategic voting made necessary by a first past the post voting system. All problems are down stream of voting rights, gerrymandering, and first past the post / non-proportional representation

I don’t think that those are the problems. I think it’s the money from a tiny group of wealthy individuals.

Limit that to no more than $1000 per natural person per year and make it illegal for entities that are not natural persons to contribute any money (PACs, companies, etc).

Contribution to political campaigns should mostly be by time, volunteering to work for a campaign.

Re: We must return to an economy fueled by innovation, rather than disruption

#306

Post by throwaway0a5e »

Ambolia wrote: post #205

Uber if anything makes taxis less productive and efficient, a big taxi company can take care car repairs in a very efficient way. The magic of Uber is taking those hidden costs and pushing them on the drivers, now the cars get fixed in a much less efficient way, but the ones taking the risk are the drivers, so Uber wins overall.

The big savings is creating plausible deniability that lets the uber drivers get away without commercial insurance. They basically took the good ol' pizza delivery boy loophole and applied it to taxis. Vehicle maintenance is a drop in the bucket compared to gas and tires anyway.

Re: We must return to an economy fueled by innovation, rather than disruption

#307

Post by Retric »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #304
Retric wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s missed in these discussions is these regulations had a point to them. It’s obvious Uber driving around without passengers increases congestion. Really look at AirBnb, Bird, etc and they all offload externalities from the company and it’s customers to everyone around them. When the basic building model is to break the law, chances are the law had a point and people are going to want a return to normal eventuall…

>What’s missed in these discussions is these regulations had a point to them And what point would that be? Satisfying some legislator's desire to show Karen they're "doing something"? Raising the barrier to entry for new entrants? Protecting people? Everyone who has a poorly thought out regulatory knee-jerk reaction likes to imagine that it's all the 3rd option but there's a heck of a lot of the first and second sail…

Initially the point was to reduce the number of Taxi on NYC streets, especially unsafe Taxi. The existing regulations did require a defensive driving course for Taxi drivers as well as a fairly clean driving record etc. But at it’s core was New Yorkers being fed up by how crowded the streets had gotten.

Re: We must return to an economy fueled by innovation, rather than disruption

#308

Post by skohan »

Veelox wrote: post #256
skohan wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I agree with some of your points: I.e. I think people would generally agree the user experience of Uber is an improvement over taxis even if the labour conditions are a regression. The problem I see is that even the potential for disruption is consolidated in fewer and fewer hands. With IP law the way it is, Google and Apple acting as gatekeepers to mobile ecosystems, Amazon owning e-commerce and squeezing or comp…

> I think people would generally agree the user experience of Uber is an improvement over taxis even if the labour conditions are a regression. I am going to make my point bluntly. Do you think the people driving for Uber are dumb? Every time I see this kind of argument I feel like it removes any agency from the gig workers. The implication is "Uber's drivers don't understand they are getting screwed. We need to chan…

Would you say that everyone who falls victim to predatory lending is dumb? Or do people maybe get exploited when they are in bad economic situations as well?

https://www.kqed.org/news/10499074/one-uber-drivers-story-ho...

Re: We must return to an economy fueled by innovation, rather than disruption

#309

Post by horns4lyfe »

musicale wrote: post #284
version_five wrote: post #171

Where I was during uber's ascent, uber's defining value proposition was circumventing the artificial monopoly created by the taxi medallion system. This "disruption" was actually great, it shook up an industry that needed shaking up (ironically I now use cabs because they have become better than uber where I am. This would not be the case if uber never existed). But even if it did some good "disrupting", I think the…

> Uber's defining value proposition was circumventing the artificial monopoly created by the taxi medallion system Licensing/regulatory evasion is one of the principal strategies that got Uber (taxi services), Airbnb (hotel services) and Paypal (banking services) off the ground and allowed them to compete so effectively against incumbents. Eventually regulation caught up somewhat but the newcomers still seem to enjoy…

If regulation is the only think keeping the incumbents on top for something like a car service, then that’s a problem.

Re: We must return to an economy fueled by innovation, rather than disruption

#310

Post by softwarebeware »

fooblessmooo wrote: post #271
softwarebeware wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re on to something there. Most software available today merely does what free software already does, but with specific marketing to make it seem like something people need. For example, all of the below software categories are easily handled with either the software bundled with your operating system or a simple open source download: - budgeting - to do / productivity - book / music / video game / etc. me…

I think what’s truly missing is that all those apps don’t make sharing easy, and operating systems all suck at sharing, or when they’re ok at it (airdrop), it’s limited to nearby people, or not across OSes, etc. Almost all SaaS are about easy cross-device, cross-internet, sharing, which all traditional apps don’t even try to be good at.

I agree that's a valid point and it totally makes sense why people pay for certain things. I'd also observe that SyncThing* obviates it, again for free, but more people would have to know about it and use it.

* https://syncthing.net/

Post reply on HN