Posts by Anthony Moore8

14 posts shown.

Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America? in Economy · Aug 1, 2003

Andrew Hernandez said:Take a look at what’s happening in San Diego
(full post)

Who’s actually causing the chaos, picking fights, and harassing passengers? It's the current Taxi Association!
The mess in this market wasn't caused by some new guy coming on board; it was created by the same old crooks who refuse to give up their monopoly...

→ go to post

Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America? in Economy · Jul 24, 2003

Look, that’s just how it looks on the surface.

I didn't want to bring this up earlier since I don't have anything in writing—I just heard it mentioned on a segment of Chicago Panorama.

The city isn't issuing any new licenses based on the recommendations from the taxi Association anymore, mostly because the Association claims there are already way too many drivers out there.

Ever wonder why they specify two? Those two licenses mean that if a new driver wants in, they have to track down two existing drivers who are looking to quit, then pay them whatever ridiculous price they demand for their spot just to be allowed into the Association.

But let's be clear, this "Association" isn't some nonprofit for animal lovers or historical preservationists... They hold public authority similar to the American Medical Association or that Bar Association group that has the power to grant or strip licenses from the losers of their profession. It's a total catch-22—if you want to drive on the streets of Chicago, you HAVE to be a member of this taxi Association! It's nothing more than a straight-up medieval guild model designed to protect their own interests through a monopoly.

As for the whole "hailing a cab on the street" thing, 🙂 the only reason I even brought it up was to try and put it behind us by simply pointing out the differences...

→ go to post

Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America? in Economy · Jul 24, 2003

Martina,
Look, I don't agree with you, but I'm not looking to start some massive blowout over it. Like I said before—I think everyone here has already laid their cards on the table!
I totally get where your skepticism is coming from—we Americans have a knack for twisting every single rule to suit our needs.
It reminds me of this segment on NPR about euthanasia. You had doctors, lawyers, priests... all the big hitters. At the end, they were supposed to take a final stand on whether legalization was the move. This one doctor, who seemed pretty middle-of-the-road, dropped this absolute bombshell:
"I'm against legalization, not because I see an inherent flaw in euthanasia itself, but because our people would take even the best law and twist it for purposes it was never intended for. Right now, I can't tell you exactly how legalizing euthanasia could be abused, but I am certain our citizens would find a way very quickly."

I think part of why we're clashing is that we're just looking at the whole concept of using an Uber through different lenses. It seems like you're talking about how people currently use a taxi service (honestly, the only time I ever used a taxi in my life was when I was 21 for a business trip, and the company cut a check for maybe 40-$17 for a ride from Downtown to the Lakers arena)
What I’m describing is a fast, cheap, high-frequency ride service—like what you see in those old movies where a guy just waves his hand, hops in, and drops a few bucks for a quick trip.
If you ask me, the only way to make that a reality is to have actual competition among drivers and for the government to just stay out of it as much as possible.
Just to set the record straight—you don't exactly "plan" a trip to Starbucks or Walmart on the corner. You run out of sugar—so you go, and you buy it... maybe grab something at Restac while you're at it? I wasn't talking about five-star dining experiences; I mean something simple like, "Man, I really want a Steak, or a pizza, or some veggie dish..."
Another thing is, in NYC, the rules aren't even set by the state; they're dictated by some civic association!
Give me a break—this "qualified driver" nonsense. I know a guy who drove his brother to work every single day for 40 years, took him on weekend trips, and drove the family across various states and even out to visit Expats a few times a year. He was driving well into his 80s without a single accident; yeah, he got a couple of speeding tickets or a seatbelt fine, but never a DUI, and he never lost his license. If that guy were 50 years younger today, he wouldn't be allowed to drive an Uber because he isn't a "qualified driver." c'mon!

→ go to post

Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America? in Economy · Jul 24, 2003

Donald: Here is the link that zizi dropped ()

If an interested party wants to join the Association, they have to check these boxes:
1. Start a taxi business (Department of Commerce)
2. Have completed transport school or undergo retraining for a commercial driver's license
3. Pass a taxi exam (The test is administered at City Hall)
4. Purchase 2 taxi operating concessions
5. Be at least 21 years old
6. Have at least 2 years of driving experience
7. Pay the Association membership fee of $3333 to gain access to the Association's radio network.

Based on what I've gathered from this whole thread (if you care, I think the juiciest part is the transition from page 1 to page 2) and based on what I recall from a recent episode of Chicago Panorama and an old Congressional show, if someone wants to drive a cab, they need a concession. These concessions are issued by the city to the taxi association. To join—see the list above.
My critique of the current situation is built on these premises. If I've completely misunderstood everything in some extreme scenario—please, someone set me straight, so I don't keep wasting my time or yours...
As for the other specifics in your questions, I don't have the inside scoop, but we aren't even debating the current regulations here; we're talking about the ones being introduced (or attempted to be introduced) by the Department of Transportation. That’s what I gathered from your post back on July 22nd.

→ go to post

Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America? in Economy · Jul 23, 2003

Since I’m trying to stop writing these massive essays—or honestly, just break this bad habit of mine😁—here's another quick one for you,

Maybe Greyhound could give us a better breakdown of how this works.
Everyone treats the MTA in Washington, D.C. like they have zero competition. But they actually have one little rival out in the suburbs—some local private shuttle service that holds the contract for city and commuter transit in a nearby suburban town.

From what I hear, those small town residents consider the ten-mile stretch from their station in the Neighborhood to the main terminal at the Neighborhood as a single zone, charging maybe 3 or 4$1.75 bucks, which is way cheaper than paying the MTA's $2.75 rates when you buy a fare directly from the driver. I’ve actually seen people who refuse to dodge the fare on an MTA bus hand over those few coins to the local guy instead.
But then, for a slightly longer trip from the suburb to that same Neighborhood where there's absolutely no competition, those guys split the route into a million tiny zones, making a single ticket cost 10$5.00 bucks.
There you go—just a little example of how even public transit can actually face some real competition!

→ go to post

Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America? in Economy · Jul 23, 2003

Frank Lee6 said:Under your version of a 'free market,' you’d basically just be praying for patience and grit if you actually wanted to find a decent level of service.

Look, I really don't feel the need to prove you wrong here since this isn't some debate where there are objectively right or wrong answers—fine, whatever, think what you want; I’ve already said that once before.
I just want to address this 'my' free market model thing you're throwing at me.
My take on how taxiing should work is pretty simple:
- Anyone should be able to register as an individual or a company to provide rides in any city without facing insane overhead costs.
- Because of competition—just like how snack brands fight for shelf space—drivers will naturally strive to offer better service, nicer cars, safer vehicles, bigger trunks, friendlier attitudes, and so on. We don't need the government or City Hall dictating those standards.
- With prices dropping significantly, people would ride more often and have more choices. Following basic Darwinian principles, the overpriced, rude drivers with junk cars would just get weeded out. Right now, regulation just forces them to pretend they aren't terrible.
- As for the right to refuse service—my pizza analogy still holds water (even if I wasn't talking about delivery), because not only will a pizzeria stop delivering to me if they mess up (and what if the driver loses the order?), but I won't be ordering from them anymore either, and I'll tell everyone else their food sucks! It's the same for drivers. A customer—just like in anything else—has the right to refuse goods if they aren't satisfied, and not pay for them.
An extreme example would be hidden cameras in a torture chamber. You won't do it, and you don't have to.
- I never said the market shouldn't be regulated; I just said regulation should focus strictly on passenger safety, not on whether they're comfortable.
Since you already bought into my self-service comparison, here is how taxiing falls short compared to retail, and how customers are screwed even with regulations in place:
* When you open a corner store, you don't have to beg a Merchant Association for a permit or pay them for one $3.25 instead, you just pay the state what the law requires.
* From what I see in places like Chicago, there isn't a legally mandated minimum square footage for a shop, and if there is, it stays within reasonable limits.
* Milk and perishables definitely need to be in a fridge, and that fridge needs to work, but a trade association doesn't dictate its color, how old it is, its volume, or extra features like specific door types or ice buckets.
* The law doesn't require shops to have AC, even though most do so the food lasts longer, nor does it mandate heating in the winter—but everyone provides it anyway.

But also:

* A shopkeeper doesn't charge a premium rate just because it's late at night or a holiday.
* Shopkeepers don't collude to keep prices high just to avoid being kicked out of a trade group.
* A customer in a store can return items and get a replacement or a refund.
* A customer isn't forced to buy from one specific shop if they don't want to—they have options.
* A customer doesn't have to visit one exact store just because a trade association decides so.

So, maybe a better summary would be:
I am against regulating every tiny little detail of service quality.
I am for regulating the absolute bare minimum safety requirements for taxi services.

I am against monopolies and the practice of private associations wielding public authority.
I am for letting everyone try their luck in the business arena under equal but reasonable conditions.

I am against both the state and taxi associations dictating the terms of engagement between passengers and drivers.
I am for applying the same logic used in all other services, where the best and cheapest options win the user's trust.

→ go to post

Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America? in Economy · Jul 23, 2003

Alright, you bunch of contrarians. Look, your points are actually pretty solid and well-reasoned. I don't have much else to add; I respect where you're coming from, even if I don't exactly see eye to eye with you on everything—it’s actually pretty refreshing to have a debate like this.

But here’s the thing—setting aside all the talk about service quality for a second—I feel like we haven't really hit the nail on the head regarding the core issue: Is it actually necessary to...
- let one single Association hold a total monopoly over the taxi business?
- require specific concessions just to operate a taxi service?
- allow a single area to run without any actual competition?

So, before we dive deeper into this, I want to know if you guys agree with my basic premise here: that running a taxi service is just a standard small business, no different from any other trade, and there's absolutely no logical reason why it shouldn't be treated exactly like one.

→ go to post

Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America? in Economy · Jul 22, 2003

Frank Lee6 said:I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Those regulations aren't actually designed to look out for the drivers; they're there for the people sitting in the back seat... the customers...
Why does this only apply to a Yellow Cab? Because a cab isn't your personal ride—it’s a public service...
And you’ll be the one wandering around the city searching for a Yellow Cab when you actually need one, wondering which driver even bothers to turn the AC on... Or when a ride finally shows up after you called it, you think they aren't going to hit you with that extra base fare just because you wasted their time by canceling last minute?!...

Give me a break! I’m not the one heading in the wrong direction here. The entire country is spiraling in the wrong direction...
Look, let's get one thing straight: running a Yellow Cab isn't some kind of public utility... It’s a private business, plain and simple.
Look, let’s get one thing straight: being a driver for a Yellow Cab isn't some special, elite vocation. It's just a service business. At the end of the day, someone running a taxi stand is doing the exact same kind of work as a local tailor, an optician, or even someone selling umbrellas on a street corner... It’s all just small business operations, plain and simple...
The whole thing with base fares is a joke—it’s a direct result of how messed up current regulations are. As a customer, you don't even get a say in which car shows up to pick you up. If the taxi market were actually deregulated, drivers would be out here busting their tails to give you the best service just to win your business, rather than some random competitor getting the call... I haven't personally tested this lately, but if you call a Yellow Cab today and demand an AC unit, they’ll make it happen. And honestly? Let them try to charge me if I turn them down. What did I use? Nothing. What am I paying? Absolutely nothing...
It’s like you’re forced to buy something at every single shop you walk into, or like you absolutely HAVE to go pick up your pizza yourself when you order delivery... ridiculous...

Frank Lee6 said:If everyone had their own wacky little set of perks and custom rules, we wouldn't be looking at a functioning market—we'd just be staring straight into pure chaos. Look, how things actually work is that drivers usually pick up fares in a specific, predictable rotation. Because of that, it only makes sense that everyone provides the exact same level of service...

What you’re calling chaos, I call a free market. What some people label as mindless conformity, others see as pure discipline. What one side screams about as anarchy, the other recognizes as true pluralism... and this goes on forever...
Is it even remotely logical to assume that every self-checkout lane offers the same experience? Absolutely not...
Is it actually logical to think that every single restaurant out there provides the exact same level of service? Absolutely not... It’s just not how the world works. You've got your high-end steakhouses where they treat you like royalty, and then you've got those greasy spoons where you're lucky if they even acknowledge you exist. Thinking they all operate on the same wavelength is just plain delusional...
Look, let's be real here—Yellow Cab isn't some special case...
At the end of the day, whether you're booking a flight or catching a train, you're always looking at a bunch of different tiers of comfort... just a whole spectrum of ways to spend your money if you want to feel less like cargo.

Running a taxi business is just entrepreneurship, plain and simple. It’s no different from any other hustle out there...
It honestly kills me to think about it... if you had asked me just two years ago, I would’ve been stuck in some endless debate with you, trying to argue that it was impossible for AT&T to provide an itemized bill. I mean, come on—their service offerings aren't even remotely similar to what you'd find at a retail store. It’s just common sense...

→ go to post

Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America? in Economy · Jul 22, 2003

Frank Lee6 said:You’re out here acting like headrests don't matter, yet you have the nerve to claim seatbelts are basically useless. As far as I can tell, seatbelts are the single most effective thing you've got when you're heading into a head-on collision... 37 miles/h, so we're talking speeds that are pretty much identical to what you'd see cruising through a major metro area. On top of that, those headrests aren't just some decorative fluff—they’re actually functional. They exist specifically to prevent neck snaps during a rear-end collision after the seatbelt has already done its job...

So why just Uber, then? Why doesn't this rule apply to every single vehicle on the road? At the end of the day, the law says the car is required to have it, not that the driver is forbidden from pulling away if the passenger hasn't buckled up...

Frank Lee6 said:Look, that whole rule about trunk space is really just a practical necessity. When you're hauling a group around, especially during those peak summer months, having way too much luggage becomes a massive headache real fast. Most Uber drivers tend to run higher-end models anyway, which usually means there's plenty of room for both the passengers and all their gear... but you can't always count on it.

Why does the government even care about this? If I’m out there picking up a passenger in my Smart, my Lupa, or my Cinquecent—and let's say a whole family shows up—sorry, but you can't just jump in with me...

Frank Lee6 said:Look, AC used to be some high-end luxury feature, but let's be real—these days even a base-model Ford comes standard with air conditioning. At this point, making it a requirement isn't about being extra, it's just about preventing discrimination and making sure nobody gets stuck sweating while everyone else is chilling...

Unequal playing field? Please. It’s actually the exact opposite. Nowadays, any driver running an AC unit has a massive leg up on anyone without one. As a passenger, I can just flat-out say, "I'm not stepping foot in a car without climate control," and who's going to stop me? I'll just go find the guy whose ride actually has air conditioning. That's what you call a free market. And honestly, that driver should be able to charge a premium for it too—if you don't want to pay the extra fee, enjoy sweating through your shirt... Every time the government tries to meddle and overregulate things, they just dull the edge of progress. That's exactly why we're never going to reap even the smallest benefits of capitalism...

Frank Lee6 said:The only real headache is going to be those older vehicles that just can't keep up with all these heavy-handed requirements...

Look, this whole mess is a direct result of how Dražava handles things. I’m telling you, if an Uber driver gets hit with a flat tire or some other bullshit, what’s stopping you from just moving on to the next guy in line? It shouldn't be this complicated...

→ go to post

Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America? in Economy · Jul 22, 2003

Jeremy Turner3 said:"The Department of Transportation recently rolled out a new set of regulations requiring all Uber drivers in the US to have built-in AC, an ABS system, and airbags for both the driver and passenger. On top of that, trunk capacity can't be less than 350 liters. These rules regarding special requirements for public road transport and private hire vehicles are set to kick in on January 1, 2004. This also includes mandatory third brake lights, headrests, and seatbelts for every single seat. Existing fleets will have until January 1, 2006, to get their acts together and meet these standards."

This approach is completely backwards! The government isn't here to play concierge and guarantee a luxury experience! Who guarantees the quality of service when you walk into a local bakery or a corner bodega? You just get the bare minimum assurance that the food won't kill you. In our world, the equivalent is simply getting to your destination via the fastest route without you or your luggage ending up in a ditch. Air conditioning or extra trunk space shouldn't even be part of this conversation.
I guess the rule about headrests is somewhat justifiable (from my perspective, anyway)...
As for the third brake light, that’s going to be standard on every car anyway, just like seatbelts for every seat—which, let's be honest, doesn't change a damn thing when you're just grabbing a quick ride through Washington, D.C.!

→ go to post

Why is the Uber market still basically a monopoly in America? in Economy · Jul 7, 2003

If you'll let me jump in here for a second.
Let's talk about monopolies and regulation.
We need to start from square one—without all that extra baggage everyone else tries to pile on.

Think about how a taxi company with its own fleet actually gets off the ground—they need stands. You buy them or rent them; the city or the state shouldn't even be part of that equation.
Almost every business out there, excluding giants like ExxonMobil, state-owned entities, or big tobacco, sets its own damn prices. We’re leaving the government out of that math entirely.

The city or the state only needs to step in when you have to guarantee service quality and protect people's property and safety. That means the government and/or the city should only be allowed to regulate the specific parts of a driver's business that deal with passenger safety and making sure they actually show up on time. That's it. Nothing else. I don't care about what color the car is, the model, how old it is, the features, the fees, the surcharges, or granting concessions...
Because, by its very nature, a concession is only granted when a job can't be handled by an unlimited number of people, which simply isn't the case with rideshare or taxi services.
So, why is it that after I register my business and pay for my Uber decals and ID numbers—so anyone can report me using that number—I still can't just grab my bucket and start chauffeuring people around? If a customer isn't feeling the look or the equipment in my car, they don't have to ride with me. And if I don't take them the fastest way possible, or if my car breaks down on the highway, they can just call the cops...
Aside from safety (which is the only thing the government has a right and duty to meddle in), how is driving a cab any different from making candles, running a bookstore, or fixing umbrellas?
It shouldn't be treated any differently.

..........................

Setra Smoborček brought up a solid point—public transit in a suburban town near a major capital is run by a private company that gets subsidies for non-profitable routes, just like the MTA does in Washington, D.C. And the system works; it's not world-class, but at least it functions just as smoothly as if it were run by a public agency. So, all those fears that a private company can't handle public duties? Totally baseless.

→ go to post

In the mountains grows a green pine in Movies · Jul 7, 2003

Daniel Lopez said:I’m pretty sure it said right at the start that the movie was dedicated to Ivan Šibl and that everything actually happened and was based on something Ivan Šibl wrote.

😲 😲 😲 🔥 REAL EVENTS?! ?! Hm... That's just awful...
Thanks for the heads up. I missed those first few minutes...

→ go to post

In the mountains grows a green pine in Movies · Jul 7, 2003

So, I caught Vrdoljak's "In the mountains grows a green pine" last night. Look, I’m not saying it’s some cinematic masterpiece or anything, but the whole premise really got me thinking, especially considering the era it's set in.
I did a bit of digging online, but came up empty—does anyone know if there's actually a book this movie was based on?

→ go to post

Is psychology actually a science? in Psychology · May 29, 2003

Look, I hate to be the one to burst anyone's bubble here, but psychology is a legitimate science because it has a clearly defined field of study and its own rigorous methodology.
Every psychological experiment out there is subject to replication and error just as much as any other hard science you can think of.
Based on how we define science today—at least according to my understanding—psychology fits the bill perfectly. Honestly, what some random person said or thinks doesn't really matter. Just like how chemistry eventually emerged from the mess of alchemy, psychology evolved from studying the occult.
For crying out loud, just think scientifically. How are you supposed to know for sure if a spark in a furnace is actually linked to a crack? You use the scientific method. You test it, prove it isn't, and then that's that. That’s basically the core scientific principle, rather than just lazily dismissing something as occultism...

→ go to post