[RobertoG]

"There shouldnt be any taxi licenses anymore and any modern country should get rid of this monopolizing practice."

Last time I checked that kind of thing whas decided by the citizens of the modern country using its modern democratic institutions.

"Furthermore with automated cars coming this whole argument you are trying to establish is moot."

Actually, I think it makes even more sense. Italian society will decide how they want to deal with automatic cars, in the same way they are deciding how to deal with Uber.

[ThomPete]

You don't have elections about how taxi regulation should be handled. Neither did italian voters vote for the current taxi regulation. So lets stop the sherrade for a moment here shall we?

There are many many areas which are left to politicians to deal with. Not even Switzerland votes on everything.

Italy, Denmark and other countries allow companies to use them as tax loopholes all the time because it creates jobs in their countries and thats one of the most valuable political currencies.

The Uber model destroys that by contracting freelancers instead and subsidizing the rides allowing them to compete with the existing taxi industry with it's existing political powers and lobbied politicians.

There is nothing noble about banning Uber it's purely a political move to ensure a protected industry can continue and thus it's political powers be used and controlled.

[RobertoG]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Only one remark: not banning Uber also would be a political move. We can't escape politics.

[ThomPete]

My point is that Uber wasn't banned because it was illegal but because it was politically problematic. There are plenty of companies who do exactly like Uber tax-wise but doesn't get banned simply because they create jobs.

Furthermore your claim that it's somehow an expression of the italian voter is simply flat out wrong.

[RobertoG]

I think that your point is wrong.

The article says:

"Italy's taxi associations succeeded in winning the ruling after they brought a lawsuit against Uber to court."

It sounds like it was illegal. Why it was illegal? Because the Italian legislative branch decided so. To who the legislative answer? To the Italian voters.

Is this system a democracy? yes. Could be the system be more democratic? Sure.

[ThomPete]

No my point is not wrong. You actually prove my point.

The voter has nothing to do with it they didn't vote for or against it.

The Italian legal system decided on it because it was brought up by someone with political and economic interest. The law is made so that it protects the industry through the licenses and thus political in it's essence.

The point is that any political system who claims it's modern should find a way to make Uber legal and contrary to your claim this wasn't a product of democracy but of a legal system which favorites existing industries.

[RobertoG]

Well, if your point is that Italy is a parliamentary republic and not a direct democracy, then, you are right.

"[..] thus political in it's essence."

The law is always political in its essence. How could be otherwise?

"The point is that any political system who claims it's modern should find a way to make Uber legal"

That it's your opinion that, I dare to say, many Italians don't share.

[nawitus]

"Last time I checked that kind of thing whas decided by the citizens of the modern country using its modern democratic institutions."

It's possibly to advocate for a position and also believe in democracy. In fact, advocacy is part of the democratic process.

"Actually, I think it makes even more sense. Italian society will decide how they want to deal with automatic cars, in the same way they are deciding how to deal with Uber."

Yes, so far they have decided incorrectly.

[RobertoG]

"It's possibly to advocate for a position and also believe in democracy. In fact, advocacy is part of the democratic process."

Absolutely, but, lately, with the current Zeitgeist and all,I feel like it's not going overboard to remember it from time to time.

"Yes, so far they have decided incorrectly."

As it's their right (just remembering it again, only in case).

[mantas]

So democracy is good as long as it decides correctly? And what gives you authority to decide what is and what is not correct?

[Eridrus]

Do you think Italy's citizens are actually in favor of in maintaining the taxi monopoly?

There are reasonable reasons to require registration when cabs had to find people on the street, but mobile apps have significantly changed how drivers can operate and should result in rethinking the laws rather than blindly supporting the existing special interests.

Allegations of predatory pricing can be investigated separately if that's an actual concern.

[RobertoG]

"Do you think Italy's citizens are actually in favor of in maintaining the taxi monopoly?"

I have not idea. I suppose we should ask them, using the democratic established channels. Meanwhile, Uber should follow the law.

[JoeAltmaier]

At some point, its moot. Uber is an app. Is the app banned? How? Some national firewall?

This brave new world and such marvels in it. Reminds me of when a nation (Thailand?) 'banned' bitcoin. What on earth could that even mean?

[maxerickson]

In the case of a service app, one thing a country can do is make it hard to bank. Will people drive for Uber without getting paid? Probably not.

Same with bitcoin actually. A pretty big majority of people aren't going to use it if it is cut off from most of their local economy.

[pmontra]

Uber is a company and it moves money. I bet the app still works in Italy. Uber could block it or not. What it should not do is keep operating in Italy: not routing requests to drivers is the first important step.

[muninn_]

Most likely there wasn't any "democratic" decision to establish a limitation on the number of taxi licenses. It's just bureaucracy. I don't really see the economic argument for them, Uber competition or not.

[RobertoG]

"I don't really see the economic argument for them"

It's a price control measure. They decided that the people doing this job should be able to make a living doing it.

Of course, this goes against laissez faire ideology, but, it's their prerogative to choose that.

[muninn_]

Yes but what is the economic argument for doing so? Does this make Italians better off? How does it affect the cost of living? Why not double the limit? Why not half it? Should people even be employed to do this? What about when self-driving cars can operate as taxis?

Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers?

My point is to ask what research and thought has gone into this policy. Somebody mentioned that it was "a democratic decision" when I highly doubt anybody voted on this issue, let alone discussed it with the public. It seems at first glance to be mindless bureaucracy, but I can't say for certain.

[RobertoG]

"Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers?"

I suppose that they do it for those too through collective agreements (it seems that there is not minimum wage in Italy). That would not make sense for taxi drivers that are basically small business, so they have to limit the supply.

Are Italians better off?

No idea. It depends on your ideology. We should define better off first, and we would never arrive to an agreement there. The thing is that this is the way they decide to organize using their institutions.

[muninn_]

> The thing is that this is the way they decide to organize using their institutions.

So what? This is a non-factor in any sort of discussion like this.

> small business, so they have to limit the supply.

Why?

[RobertoG]

Because they want to control the price.

Why they want to control the price?

My perception is that the Italian society feel that they should have a minimum wage. In other words, that market forces shouldn't be allowed to push the wages below a minimum. As taxis operate as little business and not as standard employees, they can't control that minimum directly, so they control the supply.

Is that the right decision? I have no idea, but, I defend their right to go with it.

[ThomPete]

No they don't. Eastern European drivers drive for the fraction of a cost than western european drivers do because they have less cost where they come from.

So all this shows is exactly the political nature of the judges uber ruling. It's all politics and claiming it's somehow justified as you did originally is simply not the case.

[RobertoG]

The judges just followed the law. So, their ruling is totally justified.

The law is, obviously, political in nature and decided through the Italian democratic institutions.

Really, I don't know what more to say.

[ThomPete]

This has nothing to do with laissez faire ideology and you are actually the one showing your ideological stance here.

Uber disrupts because it turns something which used to be a relatively high paying job into one that isn't because it doesn't need to be.

Uber subsdizing by taking on debt isn't unfair competition anymore than a supermarket who decided to sell something at a discount because it want to attract customers and I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again.

[RobertoG]

I was only answering the parent question: they limit the supply in order to control the price. That goes against laissez faire ideology for sure.

In my opinion, the most important point is that the Italians have the right to do so if they choose. Or to change their minds in the future.

" I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again." OK, good for them, in that case.