Tag: taxi

Categories
folly free trade & free markets general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies tax policy too much government

Whose Side Are They On?

Uber, Lyft, Taxi, protection, tax, crony, cronyism, illustration

Excuse me if I drive over familiar roadways. But we are witnessing one of the great revolutions in human cooperation.

And our governments and politicians are working mightily to block traffic.

I refer, of course, to Uber and Lyft and the like.

The innovation that these companies bring to market? Enabling everyday drivers to leverage their personal investment in a capital good — a car or SUV — to make extra bucks (or even a living) while efficiently serving people who want rides.

Ride-hailing apps on smart-phones provide more security and consumer guidance than the old taxi services ever bothered to even try. The elaborate online rating system, where drivers rate riders and vice versa, provides a new market in information that outstrips government “regulation” as a consumer defense system.

And consumers get better rides, cheaper.

The Uberization of ride sharing competes directly with taxis, of course, and that’s a problem . . . for taxi companies. And the politicians who have regulated them for years. This regulation never was about consumer protection, but politicians just feathered their own nests with campaign contributions through crony capitalism, helping some taxi services at the expense of others.

And customers.

The latest idiocy hails from Massachusetts, which has enacted a 20¢ per trip tax on all ride-sharing apps, with 5¢ of each charge slated for subsidizing the old, established taxi services.

Taxachusetts’s Republican governor, Charlie Baker, has been sucked in to the government racket, choosing to support old cronies rather than customers.

Still, it could have been worse. The advocates of the tax had initially demanded Uber be banned.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Uber, Lyft, Taxi, protection, tax, crony, cronyism, illustration

 

Illustration based on original cc photo by GörlitzPhotography on Flickr

 

Categories
crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets general freedom

Drive Free or Die

Uber, taxi, sharing, free uber, Common Sense

Ever told your kids to share? That’s aiding and abetting, you know.

Sharing is illegal.

At least, it is in Portsmouth, New Hampshire . . . regarding Uber.

The popular ride-sharing company may be widely heralded as the flagship of the new sharing economy, but a Portsmouth city ordinance effectively blocks the service, requiring that the company provide background checks on all drivers, which Uber calls “draconian.”

While the company is trying to get the city to alter that mandate, several Uber drivers have ignored the ban, continuing to pick up passengers. In October, police stopped Stephanie Franz, who now faces a $500 fine.

Chris David has also continued to drive for Uber. After he recorded a verbal altercation with a cabbie on a city street and posted it to YouTube, David was charged with wiretapping — a felony.

Taxi companies are upset, too, claiming the ordinance creates “a free-for-all.” A Portsmouth Taxi executive bemoaned, “Anybody can come in.”

Before the ordinance took effect in September, only 28 cabs were allowed to operate. “That’s like limiting the number of restaurants and bars in Portsmouth to 28 to keep them full day and night,” argued Assistant Mayor Jim Spilane.

In the “Live Free or Die” state, barriers to earning a living and heavy-handed criminal charges have led to the pro-Uber slogan, “Drive Free or Die.”

Tonight at 6:30 pm, there’s a #FreeUber rally at the Portsmouth City Hall. If you’re nearby, please go help explain that government regulations ought to accommodate economic advances, not frustrate them.

That is, if you can find a legal ride.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Uber, taxi, sharing, free uber, Common Sense

 

Categories
folly free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism responsibility

The Uber-Huge Mistake

Uber, car, ride, London, taxi, regulation, waiting, Paul Jacob, Common Sense

Uber’s challenge to old-fashioned ride service — to the taxi industry — is at least twofold.

One, it shows government regulation to be counterproductive and kind of witless.

Two, it shows that innovation — particularly by decreasing transaction costs — can rapidly transform a market for the good of consumers.

Recently, politicians who play to special interests — in this case, to taxicab companies and taxi drivers — have made some spectacular blunders. Perhaps the best-known is Bernie Sanders, who claims to see severe “problems” with Uber’s online ride-sharing service, but whose campaign staff uses Uber for ride-sharing . . . and nothing else. Hah!

But the London transit regulators have made the biggest splash.

Their latest proposal? To require Uber drivers to wait five minutes before picking somebody up.

Evens the playing field, you see.

Uber is so much quicker to respond to the paying riders’ needs that taxicabs apparently cannot compete in Old London Town.

The folks at Uber publicized the expected company reaction: the regulation would be a “huge mistake.”

But really, it’s a HUGE ADMISSION.

It shows that Uber’s service is superior, and that government regulators are more interested in protecting providers (taxicabs) than customers (pedestrians seeking rides).

It also shows these regulations for what they really are: protectionism for special interests, not protection for the safety of consumers.

Remember what Frédéric Bastiat said about protectionism: it’s always about placing obstacles in front of some producers (and the market in general) to aid a select (literally privileged) group of producers, regardless of consumer wants and needs.

Hobbling Uber to save taxicabs! What’ll they think of next?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Uber, car, ride, London, taxi, regulation, waiting, Paul Jacob, Common Sense

 

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

P2P Jitneys

Virginia state government has banned Web-based/app-based car-ride services Uber and Lyft from operating in the state. After applying heavy fines. After demanding the services follow rules originally devised for taxis and limo and bus services.

It seems tantamount to banning the automobile a century ago because the horse-and-buggy regulations on the books didn’t fit.

Uber and Lyft call what they provide “ride-sharing” services, allowing people with smart-phone and tablet apps to “hail” rides they need, from almost anywhere to almost anywhere. The folks providing the rides have signed up and even taken classes, and both parties rate each other after the transaction. Riders can “steer clear” of low-rated drivers if they want. And drivers can not offer rides to low-rated riders, as well.

It’s quite a service.

I first heard about this idea from economist David Friedman, a generation ago. He called it a “jitney” system, and offered it as an alternative to mass transit systems that are just too capital intensive to make a profit while still servicing diverse needs.

Now, the idea is off to a good start with two excellent services. Technology has allowed for safe, low-transaction-cost contracting between strangers. This sort of person-to-person (P2P) revolution could change everything.

Including government patronage. Or the need for much government regulation. Taxicab services are heavily regulated in most places. The excuse is usually safety and traffic considerations, but let’s be frank: it’s mostly a government power grab. Horning in on territory. Collecting a fee.

Uber and Lyft leverage the capital car-owners invest, and such P2P services are probably the most efficient contracting systems possible. If free market principles should apply to anything, it is jitney services.

So, Virginia, lay off. Free the P2P.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Saving You from Low Prices

Would you be upset if you had to pay “too little” for a limo ride?

Me neither.

Nevertheless, the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission requires limo drivers to charge a minimum of $50 per ride, no matter how brief the ride may be. In 2001, Florida lawmakers foolishly empowered the Tampa-area Commission to set minimum fares. These began at $40 for limo rides, then rose to $50.

The purpose is to protect established firms from competition. “That’s why taxi companies love it — because it protects taxi companies,” says Justin Pearson, executive director of the Florida chapter of the Institute for Justice, the valiant libertarian law firm. “Large taxi and limousine companies have divvied up customers.”

Dave Shaw, president of West Florida Livery Associate, admits that taxi and limo companies backed the $50 minimum. That way, “there wouldn’t be any issues where limousines were charging the same amount as taxi cabs.” Of course, the mere desire to see certain prices prevail, low or high, does not imply any entitlement to see those prices imposed by force.

The Institute for Justice has sued on behalf of limousine business owner Thomas Halsnik and two limo customers. IJ argues that the Commission’s mandatory minimum violates the right of customers to bargain and the right of owners to make a living. “The government shouldn’t make it a crime for businesses to give customers a good deal merely to protect politically powerful insiders from competition.”

Exactly. The government shouldn’t force us to pay more so the politically powerful can be unfairly protected from competition and enriched. But it too often does.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

A Regulatory Assault Taxis Into Law

When the politicians in our nation’s capital aren’t the butt of jokes for, say, not paying their taxes or behaving scandalously, well, they’re causing even more trouble.

One of their favorite areas of official mischief-making is assaulting — er, regulating — the city’s taxicabs. Last week a number of cabbies went on strike, protesting a proposed system, not dissimilar to New York’s taxi regime. The new scheme would require cab owners to buy a very expensive medallion to operate each cab.

Larry Frankel, one of the strikers quoted in the Washington Post, said, “We are here to protect our rights as owners and operators.”

The protesting cabbies object that this is not just another expensive regulation. This one threatens their very livelihoods. It’s almost designed to favor large companies over driver-owned cabs.

Which seems almost universally the case with regulations: They protect big interests from competition.

District Council member Jim Graham, who introduced the bill to “medallionize” taxicabs, said he feared the city would be “overrun” with taxis. There are 8,000 already, with 300 adding on every month.

Why, some day there could be more cabs than politicians and lobbyists combined! Imagine the disaster: Folks getting across town too easily or, worse yet, too inexpensively.

Just another bit of ill-thought-out regulation. It is par for the course in our nation’s capital. It makes you proud to . . . live somewhere else.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

News Flash: After this commentary was recorded, the FBI arrested a top aide to DC City Councilman Jim Graham on charges of accepting cash bribes and free trips in exchange for pushing the taxicab legislation discussed here. (See this news coverage and this article in the Washington Post.)