[brc]

I find it ironic that people are warning about 'oooh, Uber monopoly' when their business model is all about deconstructing actual government monopolies.

Uber already has competitors in major markets. The market has very low switching costs. A new competitor doesn't even have to educate the customer on what to expect, or how it works, or even how to find drivers. All this has now been worked out, so any price gouging can be easily competed with.

I can only conclude those who want to 'regulate' Uber for the 'betterment of society' are severely long Taxi licences, or are hardcore socialists who abhor any economic freedom of agency, or maybe both.

[matthewmacleod]

I can only conclude those who want to 'regulate' Uber for the 'betterment of society' are severely long Taxi licences, or are hardcore socialists who abhor any economic freedom of agency, or maybe both.

That's a pretty stupid thing to say.

Regulation of taxi services does exist for a reason other than corruption or general malfeasance. On the one hand, deregulation might increase competition and reduce fares. On the other, regulation might help to avoid price gouging or ride refusals. There's a coherent discussion to be had there.

Your shallow dismissals of all attempts as regulation as by 'hardcore socialists' or 'Taxi licenses' contributes absolutely nothing.

[brc]

I'm talking about the ability of Uber to become a private monopoly. My comment about monopolies is meant to highlight the disconnect of people arguing they might form a monopoly when most places already have a monopoly.

[justincormack]

Many countries, eg much of Europe, already have largely deregulated taxis, eg the complaints in London are just about the legal requirement to declare the fare upfront for private hire vehicles. In Sweden taxis are completely deregulated. People seem to assume that the situation is like the US taxi monopolies everywhere.