[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?