[goty2]

In a regulated market you just, in theory, take the closest taxi because you have no choice. But if there are five companies covering the same area, each company is going to have less coverage or need more cars. Each company is going to have to drive longer to pick up passengers. One company might have no cars available and passengers waiting, while another company has empty cars doing nothing. All in all there is less utilization of cars. I am not sure how big the effect would be though.

[jimmywanger]

That is ridiculous. That's like saying that the food market is more expensive because you can have multiple vendors of food in one area, so it somehow promotes price gouging. I personally like having differentiated choices of food rather than going to the state sanctioned store close to your house because they all have the same things anyways.

> All in all there is less utilization of cars.

Sure. Because there is competition for supermarkets, more food gets wasted. You did not respond in defense of your other point that somehow this would magically raise prices because ???

[goty2]

The food market is more expensive if there are multiple vendors and the customer don't shop around.

The price gouging doesn't come from multiple companies, but from the free pricing. Some independent taxis in Sweden charge 10x as much as established companies. Therefor few people would hail a random cab in the street.

Less utilization means the drivers have to charge a higher price to cover their overhead.

[jimmywanger]

> The food market is more expensive if there are multiple vendors and the customer don't shop around.

Wait, what? The customer is prevented from shopping around for rides? Before Uber, you couldn't call multiple driving services and get a ride. What is your point?

> Some independent taxis in Sweden charge 10x as much as established companies. Therefor few people would hail a random cab in the street.

This makes no sense on the face of it. You could just ask before you get in how much the fare is going to be.

> Less utilization means the drivers have to charge a higher price to cover their overhead.

No, that means they have to drive more and hope they get rides which increases supply and decreases cost. By your logic, the more empty apartments there are in a certain area, the higher the prices for apartments are going to be because of "less utilization" and "covering the overhead".

How do you justify any statement you just made?