[ska]

It's not as cut and dried as getting rid of licenses.

A couple of examples:

- some things that come with licenses are plausibly desirable (commercial insurance, say) and have no other mechanism. Yes this argues for a different solution.

- adding vehicles to road networks at or near capacity (e.g. dense metro areas) can lead to systemic inefficiencies that are plausibly much worse that the positives from a putative increase in taxi efficiency.

- etc.

This at least deserves a broader policy discussion, and it may well turn out that in some areas there is a public policy advantage to constraining this market.

[dylanjermiah]

Sure licences could be helpful, but, expectations needs to be separated from reality. Where there is power it will be abused.

[dalore]

It's not about adding vehicles. More ubers actually mean less vehicles since people who would otherwise drive and park all day would take an uber.

You would argue that more and more ubers would come. But uber drivers would see they wouldn't be making enough money so they wouldn't do that.

[ska]

"More ubers actually mean less vehicles since people who would otherwise drive and park all day would take an uber"

That's a pretty strong claim - where I've see uber operate the vast majority of fares seem to be people who were taking taxis anyway, they just prefer uber. Do you have evidence that uber is actually eating into private car usage in any significant way in a dense metro area?