Regulation. It’s a tough job.
Just as regulators think they’ve got it figured out — i.e., this is what folks must do in such-and-such circumstance, and this is what they mustn’t do in such-and-such other circumstance — somebody invents something that makes things way too easy for buyer and seller alike . . . despite all the alternative-strangling regulations.
It’s so frustrating!
This can get out of hand pretty quickly when one industry (say, computer hardware and software and networking) is by historical quirk much freer than another industry (say, New York City taxicabs). You guessed it, this isn’t a hypothetical: A company called Uber has created a smartphone app that lets cabbies and customers find each other more easily. Now Uber is testing its service in New York City.
But — uh oh! — rotten Big Apple taxi regulations prohibit yellow cabs from pre-arranging rides, that is, by methods other than hailing a cab on the street. Cabbies may not use electronic devices, for example. And cabbies usually aren’t allowed to refuse a fare unless another passenger is already sitting pretty and watching the running meter.
Officials say they are “looking at” Uber’s app, and the New York Times reports that both sides are working to “resolve regulatory concerns.” Well, there are only three ways to resolve them:
- Prohibit Uber.
- Pretend that the regulations don’t mean what they say. Or
- get rid of the stupid regulations.
Solving regulatory problems is so hard!
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
5 replies on “Hardship”
The regulations exist to control prices and ensure that the existing players don’t have any competition. Why would they want to change that system?
Having lived in New York City for years, what Drik says is mostly true. But, years back, some (usually small- 1 or 2 at most vehicles) enterpreneuers started “car service” wher eone would call and negotiate a price 9 and time) and a car would be there.
Spread rapidly- the caveat- they 9 car services0 could not pcik up someone on the street-even if the person wanted to go to the worst area and regular taxis were afraid to go there.
In a New York business magazine ( Crain’s) there was ana rticle about this; also mentioned- a couple of other apps– and the commission had to decide if to allow one, or two or all or none.
My view, why not allwo all, and let the market–the drivers, etc–decide.
But, that is simple
Ah, the webs regulators knit, when they attempt to prohibit.
Personally, I find “regulation” to be the word used when politicians should say “control” instead. And control it is: they control who can have a taxi (to prevent competition), what the fares will be (to ensure fat profits for the government sanctioned oligopoly, and the politicians to which they contribute).
The only government “regulations” we need are the laws against fraud, theft and other actions whereby one person (or company) harms another. The free market will supply, and enforce, the best “regulations” by consumer choice.
Rent-seeking crony crapitalists don’t care for regulation by the free market, as it’s easier to use government to steal for you. And politicians prefer government regulation, as it generates campaign cash from both the crony crapitalists, and those looking to be left alone in the free market to serve customers.
[…] Virginia, lay off. Free the […]