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

41–50 of 147 posts

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

#41

Post by happyscrappy »

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!

It could work this way. Wiring not done by a licensed electrician then you pay triple for insurance. No insurance no mortgage. Now you can have your house burn down and it is a total loss. Hell NH drivers don't need insurance. Live free or die.

Edit: Actually I just remembered you can wire your own house in NH, but it still has to be inspected. They are not totally crazy.

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

#42

Post by matthewmacleod »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #19
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…

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).

Agreed that there's a much wider issue to examine, because taxi services could really use an overhaul. Though I don't agree that the London case is particularly boring. The London taxi racket argued that Uber was violating the rules on minicab services not having taximeters (and that's a legitimately arguable point). That's how this sort of thing gets resolved; either we decide "yes, that rule is outdated, let's change it" or "no, we've got that rule for a reason which is still valid, Uber needs to change."

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

#43

Post by freehunter »

wozniacki wrote: post #37
gnu8 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.

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

#44

Post by DanielBMarkham »

efbbbf wrote: post #8
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. What about the client's rights?

Are they being abridged in any way?

If I offer you a ride to the airport for ten bucks,should the state prosecute me criminally? Or is that true only if I use the I Internet to do it? What if I post in an online forum?

The state can certainly require me to purchase insurance to own a vehicle. Clearly in the public's interest. Perhaps that insurance should cover riders. Great discussion. But this is simply crony capitalism. There may be risk, but there is no crime here. At all.

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

#45

Post by valarauca1 »

humanrebar wrote: post #35
valarauca1 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Arguing that personal liability laws already exist and can enforce this system is technically true. But you first have to concede that a cash settlement is potentially worth brain damage, loss of vision, loss of limbs, loss of family members, etc.

Therefore a potential liability lawsuit will result in no net economic gain, but restoring what you already had (I.E.: How much is your SO's life actually worth to you?). If you don't concede this fact, then every single instance of the situation correcting itself, I.E.: Crash and law suit, will result in a net loss to the community GDP and private loss of money. The service can have no economic value what so ever to the seller, or purchaser on a macro scale, its just becomes Russian Roulette as a service.

The issue with Randian Objectivism is it normalizes human death to solve micro economic problems.

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

#46

Post by noelwelsh »

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.).

You generally want some guarantees before you consume the service.

Most would agree it is suboptimal if the first point you can assess the quality of your taxi service is after being raped and dumped out of town (or waking up deaf because your doctor was an alcoholic, which happened to someone I know; the doctor was of course struck off).

As to whether other systems like Yelp or Facebook are substitutes for the licensing process -- well, that is a reasonable argument to put forward. It's not the usual one we hear on HN though, which is just libertarian free-market-uber-alles ranting. One complaint I would have about using Yelp or Facebook is that they are private companies, and thus not accountable to the public in the way that government licensing services are.

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

#47

Post by donatj »

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…

IF you don't like Ubers pricing or safety mechanisms take a different taxi. That IS the point. More competition is always better. You don't need mother government to control everything and make the whole world "fair". Grow up and take responsibility for yourself. If there's room for competition there will be cheaper and "safer" alternatived.

Are there cases of uber driver on passenger violence and if so how do they compare to licensed taxi driver on passenger violence statistically? This just feels like fear mo getting from the anxiety ridden to though.

I honestly don't understand how you can be on a news site for start ups and be against fair competition.

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

#48

Post by noelwelsh »

brokenmusic wrote: post #40
hobs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a good thing you know everything and your actions never have consequences on others. Fire never spreads, the free market will solve all problems, and the earth is flat.

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

#49

Post by Hytosys »

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…

>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 them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates.

As a consumer who would much rather ride in a self-driving car than with a human driver, this notion pains my heart. Using unions to halt the progress of technology hurts us all.

I'm crossing my fingers you were being sarcastic. This is a tech community, after all.

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

#50

Post by DanBC »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #19
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…

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).

Your London example is poor: Uber is free to operate in London.

Uber drivers who want to be hailed from the street or use a meter need to i) use the correct meter; ii) use a wheelchair accessible vehicle; iii) "do the knowledge".

Uner drivers have an alternitive. They could operate as minicabs. That allows them to use the app for booking; they don't need to have wheelchair accessible vehicles and they don't need to do the knowledge. But it does mean that they can't use a meter for pricing - they need to be able to agree a price before they journey starts.

"Things that control or store money" (payphones, vending machines, ticket machines, taxi meters, gambling and TOTE machines) are all high profile targets for criminal gangs and for people wishing to commit fraud. It's probably a good thing that a limited range of taxi meters is allowed to be used, although the current system of assessing and approving meters is probably sub-optimal.

Post reply on HN