[geoffbrown]

" Therefore, this risk is transferred to either drivers (who are on average mot equipped to handle this risk) or insurance companies (who pass the costs on to their entire insurance pool) and not borne directly by Uber nor its customer base. "

This is really revolting to me. And outlines what my intuition feels is wrong with most SV 'disruption'. Its just so immature. While I don't agree with your later sentiments, the risk shifting is dead on.

[kevinpet]

It's also delusional and betrays a complete lack of economic understanding of insurance. Uber is paying for insurance. The drivers should be paying for commercial insurance. It should be all priced in. If the drivers aren't getting commercial insurance, then Uber should be verifying it. If the insurance companies aren't pricing it right, then go talk to the insurance commissioner (i.e. the government agency in charge of screwing up this market).

[geoffbrown]

I'm reading the words you are saying, but I'm hearing fuck off. To your point, it would be great if the driver's had the ability to charge according to their cost basis. But they don't. A lot of should be's in your world. All I'm saying is that the money Uber makes appears to be closely linked with free riderism. If a poacher and a person willing to purchased poached game from publicly maintained land, voluntarily transact, I'm not sure either is a paragon of capitalistic virtue you seem to be implying.