Conquer Club

Uber pretend to be great people who love freedom and democracy but they're pocket-gouging shit pigs just like the rest of them.

EXAMPLE:

Late nights they set a price floor at 2x the usual fare. This does not give drivers the option of competing with each other by lowering their price.

Uber are fakers

Well taxi drivers have to pay for super expensive licenses they need to pay all their life, the system is fooked. You can t just let something like uber happen before changing the taxi status.

Please read.

http://www.chicagonow.com/kelly-truth-s ... ping-uber/

betiko wrote:Well taxi drivers have to pay for super expensive licenses they need to pay all their life, the system is fooked. You can t just let something like uber happen before changing the taxi status.

What? We're talking about how Uber suppressed the spirit of free enterprise last night by enforcing surge pricing.

Uber drivers aren't competing against each other, they're competing against non-Uber drivers. And even when there's not a price floor, Uber drivers themselves don't set the price of the fare, Uber does.

Metsfanmax wrote:Uber drivers themselves don't set the price of the fare, Uber does.

That is the point of this thread.

The taxi app I used in China had no involvement in the fare you paid. That was between you and the driver. All the app did was help you hail a cab.

That's still not exactly competition. If you and the driver can't agree on the price you want, are you just going to get out of the car and hail another one? That sounds annoying as f*ck.

Metsfanmax wrote:That's still not exactly competition. If you and the driver can't agree on the price you want, are you just going to get out of the car and hail another one? That sounds annoying as f*ck.

If you can't agree on a price then you won't even get in the car in the first place. You'll just walk off and find someone better.

However with Uber that's not an option, because you'll walk off and find someone else quoting the exact same price because the Marxists who run Uber have told them that's what they have to charge.

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:That's still not exactly competition. If you and the driver can't agree on the price you want, are you just going to get out of the car and hail another one? That sounds annoying as f*ck.

If you can't agree on a price then you won't even get in the car in the first place. You'll just walk off and find someone better.

However with Uber that's not an option, because you'll walk off and find someone else quoting the exact same price because the Marxists who run Uber have told them that's what they have to charge.

I fail to see the argument here. If I walk into a Target and don't like the price of their items, I can't even negotiate. I can go to another Target location and the same item will be the same price. My only option is to go to Wal-Mart or Amazon and see if it's cheaper there. Does that mean Target is not market-based?

MrsWDK

"Franchises are communist"

Colonel Sanders is Trotsky is a beard.

warmonger1981 wrote:Please read.

http://www.chicagonow.com/kelly-truth-s ... ping-uber/

über is a fucking joke... i refuse to use it, i tell anyone i know that does, that they are idiots... you are not covered if they wreck... you are not covered when they rob, rape, assault you... guess what? you get to go after the über driver and not the company... f*ck that... if i'm assaulted in a yellow cab, i'm suing the f*ck out of yellow cab and it's employee... California is the first domino in this bullshit über biz model... as soon as they are considered employees and über has to pony up for benefits and insurance, it is over...-Jésus noir

p.s.-i had an 11yr old girl flag me down a block from my son's school and tried to get into my car. "um, excuse me. do i know you?" "ARE YOU MY ÜBER DRIVER?"... amazing... a parent gave their 11yr old daughter a phone, told them to get an über a block away from school and thought this was a good idea. grown women are being raped by über drivers all over the damn world, and they let their 11yr old daughter use this app... ugh...

owenshooter wrote: if i'm assaulted in a yellow cab, i'm suing the f*ck out of yellow cab and it's employee...

Yes, because it's clearly the cab company's fault that you're an asshole.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:Colonel Sanders is Trotsky is a beard.

um... that is Norm McDonald, not Trotsky...-Jésus noir

Metsfanmax wrote:

owenshooter wrote: if i'm assaulted in a yellow cab, i'm suing the f*ck out of yellow cab and it's employee...

Yes, because it's clearly the cab company's fault that you're an asshole.

nope, because they license the drivers and are accountable for their actions... my being an asshole has nothing to do with it... i'm sure every single time you have been punched in the mouth (you have probably lost count by now), you went after the place of biz where it happened... wait... i guess playgrounds probably don't have "owners" that you can sue... oh well...-Jésus noir

owenshooter wrote:

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:Colonel Sanders is Trotsky is a beard.

um... that is Norm MacDonald, not Trotsky...-Jésus noir

Famous Canadian

owenshooter wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

owenshooter wrote: if i'm assaulted in a yellow cab, i'm suing the f*ck out of yellow cab and it's employee...

Yes, because it's clearly the cab company's fault that you're an asshole.

nope, because they license the drivers and are accountable for their actions... my being an asshole has nothing to do with it... i'm sure every single time you have been punched in the mouth (you have probably lost count by now), you went after the place of biz where it happened... wait... i guess playgrounds probably don't have "owners" that you can sue... oh well...-Jésus noir

That's what whiny crybabies do. Adults settle their business with the person they have a dispute with, they don't sue everyone in sight just because they can.

owenshooter wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

owenshooter wrote: if i'm assaulted in a yellow cab, i'm suing the f*ck out of yellow cab and it's employee...

Yes, because it's clearly the cab company's fault that you're an asshole.

nope, because they license the drivers and are accountable for their actions... my being an asshole has nothing to do with it... i'm sure every single time you have been punched in the mouth (you have probably lost count by now), you went after the place of biz where it happened... wait... i guess playgrounds probably don't have "owners" that you can sue... oh well...-Jésus noir

--Andy

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:That's still not exactly competition. If you and the driver can't agree on the price you want, are you just going to get out of the car and hail another one? That sounds annoying as f*ck.

If you can't agree on a price then you won't even get in the car in the first place. You'll just walk off and find someone better.

However with Uber that's not an option, because you'll walk off and find someone else quoting the exact same price because the Marxists who run Uber have told them that's what they have to charge.

I fail to see the argument here. If I walk into a Target and don't like the price of their items, I can't even negotiate. I can go to another Target location and the same item will be the same price. My only option is to go to Wal-Mart or Amazon and see if it's cheaper there. Does that mean Target is not market-based?

Well, it's less of a market than an actual market.

'sides, my complaint is that the whole rationale for Uber's existence is that it lets more drivers get in on the taxi game, and this brings prices down. Whereas the reality is that as soon as things get busy Uber just enforces surge pricing and makes itself more expensive than normal cabs.

I'd take an illegal cab over an Uber cab any day of the week.

mrswdk wrote:'sides, my complaint is that the whole rationale for Uber's existence is that it lets more drivers get in on the taxi game, and this brings prices down. Whereas the reality is that as soon as things get busy Uber just enforces surge pricing and makes itself more expensive than normal cabs.

This is a flawed perspective. When there aren't enough cabs, then people just aren't able to get where they need to go -- or it takes them a lot longer because they find some other method. This imposes costs on people -- it's just not as easily quantifiable. However, if we assume that people are rational actors, then whatever price they'd pay for an Uber -- even if more expensive than normal cabs at a given time -- is presumably less than the cost to them of not getting where they need to go on time. So it does increase total utility, which is the ultimate point of a market.

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:'sides, my complaint is that the whole rationale for Uber's existence is that it lets more drivers get in on the taxi game, and this brings prices down. Whereas the reality is that as soon as things get busy Uber just enforces surge pricing and makes itself more expensive than normal cabs.

This is a flawed perspective. When there aren't enough cabs, then people just aren't able to get where they need to go -- or it takes them a lot longer because they find some other method. This imposes costs on people -- it's just not as easily quantifiable. However, if we assume that people are rational actors, then whatever price they'd pay for an Uber -- even if more expensive than normal cabs at a given time -- is presumably less than the cost to them of not getting where they need to go on time. So it does increase total utility, which is the ultimate point of a market.

'Using an Uber has greater utlity than walking home' may well be true but that's not the point. The price hikes decrease utility compared to the price before the hike, and the hike is imposed on drivers who may well not make hikes of their own volition.

To go back to my illegal cab example, the only time drivers start price gouging in Beijing is in the early hours of the morning near bars and clubs. And in those instances, you can just try a few different people and will eventually get one who will accept a reasonable price. By enforcing a price floor, Uber is preventing its drivers from doing that.

So Uber is less of a market than black cabs, while offering no additional service to justify it.

Metsfanmax wrote:

owenshooter wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

owenshooter wrote: if i'm assaulted in a yellow cab, i'm suing the f*ck out of yellow cab and it's employee...

Yes, because it's clearly the cab company's fault that you're an asshole.

nope, because they license the drivers and are accountable for their actions... my being an asshole has nothing to do with it... i'm sure every single time you have been punched in the mouth (you have probably lost count by now), you went after the place of biz where it happened... wait... i guess playgrounds probably don't have "owners" that you can sue... oh well...-Jésus noir

That's what whiny crybabies do. Adults settle their business with the person they have a dispute with, they don't sue everyone in sight just because they can.

sooooo, cab companies carry insurance why? i'm a little confused... and their insurance isn't just for collisions... hmmmm... i guess the entire industry is just doing it backwards... maybe you can go save them all from themselves... i am so confused... you could probably help the airline industry too, because people seem to sue them when they are assaulted on planes and surviving family members generally sue for death by the result of a crash... yeah, all whiner bitches that should just handle it on their own... *eyes rolling at your straight up ignorance."

mrswdk wrote:'Using an Uber has greater utlity than walking home' may well be true but that's not the point. The price hikes decrease utility compared to the price before the hike, and the hike is imposed on drivers who may well not make hikes of their own volition.

They don't just increase prices whenever they feel like it. They increase prices in times of high demand. When there's higher demand, it's harder to get a ride (it takes longer, if you can even get one). Your point only makes sense if you consider the utility only of the people who actually get the rides, which is an incomplete perspective. You need to consider everyone in the market. By increasing the price, the rides go to the people who are willing to pay more for the rides, and therefore presumably need them more. So the market is actually using the price to direct an efficient allocation of goods -- as it should. Therefore the price hikes actually increase total utility.

To go back to my illegal cab example, the only time drivers start price gouging in Beijing is in the early hours of the morning near bars and clubs. And in those instances, you can just try a few different people and will eventually get one who will accept a reasonable price. By enforcing a price floor, Uber is preventing its drivers from doing that.

All this says is that Beijing drivers are not making as much money as they could be making. That's not an argument against Uber.

owen wrote:sooooo, cab companies carry insurance why?

Evidently because of people like you, who think that you deserve everyone else's money when something bad happens to you.

you could probably help the airline industry too, because people seem to sue them when they are assaulted on planes

More whiny crybabies. If you get assaulted by someone on an airplane, sue the person who assaulted you. Don't get mad at the whole world because you couldn't peacefully settle a dispute with someone.

owenshooter wrote:sooooo, cab companies carry insurance why?

And cups of coffee come with warnings they are hot.

Metsfanmax wrote:

mrswdk wrote:'Using an Uber has greater utlity than walking home' may well be true but that's not the point. The price hikes decrease utility compared to the price before the hike, and the hike is imposed on drivers who may well not make hikes of their own volition.

They don't just increase prices whenever they feel like it. They increase prices in times of high demand. When there's higher demand, it's harder to get a ride (it takes longer, if you can even get one). Your point only makes sense if you consider the utility only of the people who actually get the rides, which is an incomplete perspective. You need to consider everyone in the market. By increasing the price, the rides go to the people who are willing to pay more for the rides, and therefore presumably need them more. So the market is actually using the price to direct an efficient allocation of goods -- as it should. Therefore the price hikes actually increase total utility.

Repeatedly making goods more expensive until you have identified the people who are willing to pay the most for your constricted supply of goods is not a way to effectively allocate resources. Your system is a pretty textbook example of a deadweight loss, the inefficiencies of which I might as well just let Wikipedia explain:

Consider a market for nails where the cost of each nail is 10 cents and the demand will decrease linearly from a high demand for free nails to zero demand for nails at $1.10. In a perfectly competitive market, producers would have to charge a price of 10 cents and every customer whose marginal benefit exceeds 10 cents would have a nail. However, if there is one producer who has a monopoly on the product, then they will charge whatever price will yield the greatest profit. For this market, the producer would charge 60 cents and thus exclude every customer who had less than 60 cents of marginal benefit. The deadweight loss is then the economic benefit foregone by these customers due to the monopoly pricing.

I never once had a problem getting a reasonably priced ride home in Beijing. The demand for cheap rides is there and the supply of drivers willing to offer those cheap rides is there. Price floors kill that section of the market and offer nothing in return. The answer is to deregulate the taxi industry, not run a constricted, over-priced one.

Is there something wrong with communism?