4 thoughts on “Technology has made government regulation of taxi markets unnecessary”

  1. Posted 08/03/2018 at 13:58 | Permalink

    Good post.

    Though having an open platform for both passengers and taxi drivers to connect with each other would be even better as that would enable the maximum benefits of competition to flow to customers and limit the amount that could be taken by the intermediary (assuming future monopoly profits from this intermediary position is the only way to explain Uber’s valuation). Let the platform(s) be competing private companies but there is scope for regulation on having transparency on passengers requests and drivers offers – just as in the US stock market interest to buy and sell has to be distributed to all exchanges. [Not my idea, but is one of the best observations on a useful structural change that I have heard]

  2. Posted 11/03/2018 at 17:02 | Permalink

    …To thrive in a changed environment, London black cabs need to become their own ‘platform’, meaning a distinctive brand which sets its own standards, much like Uber does, and makes the most of its comparative advantages such as the Knowledge and the iconic status of London taxis. Black cabs could work together via the London Taxi Drivers’ Association – the sector’s main trade body – to jointly set prices, vehicle standards, driver numbers, and so on….

    Um….no, they can’t. The reason is very similar to the reason Kodak could not be a leader in digital photography – even though it held many patents in the area. The reason was that the Kodak board was comprised of people whose jobs were to fight for the continuation of celluloid film and light-senstive paper. Similarly, the LTDA are comprised of people who will fight for the continuation of the black cab. There is no one there who will accept ANY compromise….

  3. Posted 12/03/2018 at 07:45 | Permalink

    The IEA thoughts on anything are not respected by anyone as they act as a PR machines for some companies while not being open about their funding . PR led articles for money is not journalism.

  4. Posted 12/03/2018 at 11:24 | Permalink

    @JohnOConnor, can you be a bit more specific? What’s the flaw in the argument?
    I mean, if it’s just paid PR, it should be super-easy for you to rip it to shreds.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.