[kizza]

I think in many countries companies like Uber and AirBnB are seen to be a challenge to the democratic will of the people. It should be no surprise that we don't care very much for this!

I wonder if Uber could have achieved success in markets with more trusted governments (Germany, Japan) if they started with a softer approach.

[DasIch]

Uber solves a problem in the US because the US government is failing to provide adequate public transportation and fails at properly regulating taxis.

In most other civilized places with governments that succeed in these areas, Uber just doesn't have product market fit. The legal problems are only producing noise.

[aianus]

Uber is much more efficient than taxis regardless.

For one, it uses the spare time and preexisting cars of regular people (which are cheap) and two, it has the algorithms and data to pool more than one person in the same car.

[DasIch]

Uber is not uniquely positioned to pool multiple people in one car, to suggest otherwise is quite frankly ridiculous. Also there are no preexisting cars of regular people for Uber to take advantage of because regular people don't have adequate insurance.

[aianus]

> Uber is not uniquely positioned to pool multiple people in one car, to suggest otherwise is quite frankly ridiculous.

Of course they are, this feature is highly dependent on network effects and Uber is the biggest player.

> Also there are no preexisting cars of regular people for Uber to take advantage of because regular people don't have adequate insurance.

Besides the fact that most people don't give a shit about this, Uber does provide commercial insurance for UberX drivers while they are logged in: https://www.intact.ca/uber-ride-sharing

[blisse]

Really? I find that most people think it's the other way around, that Uber and AirBnB represent the democratic will of the people, challenging broken systems that the people do not endorse now that a better idea is available.

At least, that's how it looks over in USA/Canada.

[Barrin92]

Here in Germany companies like Uber are largely perceived exactly as the author points it out, especially this stuck out in the article:

>Their significant price advantage comes from the fact that they choose to ignore a great many laws and regulations that their competition must follow. Airbnb hosts routinely ignore zoning laws, hotel taxes, safety regulations and insurance requirements. Most Uber drivers do not have taxi or chauffeur licenses, obtain commercial insurance, pass safely inspections or comply with ADA regulations.

In my opinion Uber is nothing but a business that makes money by shifting every responsibility that an employer should hold on the drivers who function as pseudo self-employed individuals while Uber rakes in a quick buck. A business that any nation can do without. Companies need to be able to be held reliable to regulations and standards. Uber's whole model is incompatible with this.

[lathiat]

feels that way as an Australian, also. We probably have a worse relationship with our government than the USA.

[kizza]

At least with Uber I think Australian governments are getting it right because even after (imo) Uber acted in bad faith by ignoring the law, ride sharing is still being legalised. I think US governments are still a bit behind, especially as Uber has been there for longer.

[digi_owl]

Now i find myself wondering if the attitudes towards government has to do with the judiciary.

Meaning that common law nations may have a more adversarial attitude towards government because judicial rulings carry much more weight.

[Spooky23]

Then the guy next store turns his house into a flophouse, and all of the sudden AirBNB is a problem.

[ben_jones]

I've always dislike the idea that "people vote with their dollars" because theirs no way people "voted" that all their dollars go to a 1% of individuals, who strictly speaking are rarely model or even popular citizens (.i.e. the Walton family).

[todd8]

I'm missing your point. In the example of Walmart, individuals chose to take there business there, enriching the Walton family at the expense of other merchants. While literally not voting for the Walton family to receive their business, a large number of individuals did make the choice of doing business with the Walton family didn't they?

[yummyfajitas]

I think in many countries the freedom to engage in gay sex is seen to be a challenge to the democratic will of the people. It should be no surprise that we don't care very much for this!

Those of us who are less democratic and more individualistic recognize how horrible it is when democracy prevents consenting adults from engaging in harmless private activities. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

Also, "democratic will of the people" cannot exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theore...

[kizza]

One is a harmless private activity - the other is a large company gaining an unfair advantage by choosing to ignore the law. Even though they are are both about freedom I think it's impossible to compare these.

[fennecfoxen]

> an unfair advantage by choosing to ignore the law

It's 100% okay to talk about this, but if we do talk about this, let's also talk about what happens when you get the local politicians to enshrine your particular business model in law and block all your competition from stealing your property - I mean, your customers.

Is that a "fair" advantage?

[aianus]

You have this backwards, the incumbent taxi companies are the ones with the unfair advantage enshrined in law (medallions purchased 20 years ago for 1/10 of the price).