Was it eudaemonia? Or the government?
Aldo Biagini

> Governments usually ban Uber not because Uber is inefficient, but because its efficiency exposes government-run transport system’s inefficiency.

[1] Uber is not a threat to the government-run transport system. A threat to a government-regulated transport system? Yes. But regulations change all the time — especially when people pressure their governments for change.

[2] Read the TfL statement

Greyball is the key thing here: Rather than lobbying for regulatory change, Uber repeatedly decided to plough ahead and operate illegally and then developed software to try to avoid detection & minimise fines.

No regulatory agency on earth is going to look positively on that. Uber is the teenage child who instead of trying to change the rules just ignores them.

This is not a systemic problem: why hasn’t Uber’s main competitor (Lyft) had to do this? (And yes, Lyft is smaller but that’s more to do with the fact that Uber has more VC funding it is willing to burn to buy market share.)

[3] The ride-sharing model is more efficient (more flexible use of capital & labour) than traditional taxis, but [a] once taxi license costs drop to almost nothing, taxis become a lot more competitive; and [b] how sustainable long-term do you think a 20% of subsidy of your ride cost from VC funding is?

[4] Kalanick is the poster boy for Randian philosophy and the cultural values embedded in Uber are simply a reflection of that. How’d that go for the last great Rand flag bearer? In the real world, cooperation usually wins.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.