Topic: Why Do ‘Progressives’ Want to Ban Uber and AirBnB? (Read 1127 times)

For the votes.

cool post, I would just add that flashing old crony industry is always meet by resistance... laugh they are absolutely forceless to prevent those changes that you so well described. One angle of attack against uber is rape, it's tragic because regular regulated taxi driver rapes too.

Because everyone that is in power wants to remove power from the people and therefore see decentralization as a threat to them.
Airbnb and uber decentralise and deregulate. that is dangerous in their view.

Uber and Airbnb aren't automation though. 

Maybe these things are just a phase anyway. Self-driving will replace Uber and perhaps we'll be seeing these check-in coffin hotels from Japan appear everywhere.

The P2P economy is the wild west. That's true the sharing networks, the independent services (like Uber and Airbnb) and it certainly is true for crypto. It's a technology and technology is neutral. Just tools that can be used to exploit as well as liberate people at the same time.

Uber definitely isn't a presentable example for all the good that P2P technology can bring. If anything it's a good example of how regulation can sometimes be really appropriate when it comes to this sort of stuff. Without it, the tools would be potent enough to wreak havoc among society.

dont know what that has to do with what i wrote so i'll try to be clearer, the more of our workload machines can take the better, it is a surely good thing and i dont suggest we should live in the dark ages, but the advancements need to translate into better living standards for us all, not making the guy who invented the machine and his shareholders rich and eroding everyone elses pay and conditions in a never ending race to the bottom

By the way think how much of computers or computer related stuff you use and have to access to every hour of your life. Can you really turn off for 1 hour? It is more than 50%

As far as robot taking over, google is working hard on that too.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj83dL72cvg



Try to stay off the grid for one hour then come back quick to check one of those amazing Wilikon's threads 

This is sadly it. Lobbyists will come into play as well. We all know regulations should be as liberal as possible and encourage a free market, but money talks.

People in power are always resistant to change.
That is the sad part. They don't realize that technology is positive for the society as a whole.

It's power to the people, and that always scares the people in power, we have and I think will always be puppets but we get opportunities to do things we've never been able to do because of technology, though the same freedom it provides the same control and limitation. 

Special interest groups.
Taxi unions form an important vote bank.

fighting for good pay and conditions for workers means going back in time?

i'm not opposed to better machinery and technology if that's what your picture of the 50s telephone switchboard is supposed to imply but i believe the benefits of these innovations should go to workers not bosses and shareholders

by all means let's have machines and computers do 50% of everyones work and reduce their working hours and keep them on the same money but that's never what happens,what happens is the boss takes the extra money for himself as profit and lays half the workers off, no benefit to worker no benefit to the consumer

Can't go back in time.

because it leads to job losses and wage cuts

In a few lines you have described perfectly why a true liberal cannot love a technology like bitcoin 

Taxi companies are traditionally heavily regulated, taxed, and sometimes unionized. Uber takes away all of these features that liberals are very found of.

airBnB takes away power from unions as the Hotel industry is highly unionized and a decentralized network of Bed and breakfasts effectively cannot unionize.

Liberals also tend to like a large government (centralization) and both of Uber and airBnB are very decentralized

There’s just no way regulation can keep pace with innovation, and pols who think it can are living in a land of paleo-fantasy.



Ridesharing giant Uber has come under heavy fire recently with a string of revelations about its safety record, collection of private data, and relationship with the media. If Uber did actually mislead its customers, it should certainly be held responsible. But Uber’s stature looms so large that its unique controversies also threaten to cast a shadow over the “sharing economy” as a whole.

The rapid rise of the sharing economy is changing the way people around the world commute, shop, vacation, and borrow. Services like Airbnb, Yelp, and yes, Uber are disrupting long-established industries, from taxis to hotels. In the process, the sharing economy is creating new opportunities for those looking for work, and offers consumers greater convenience, better prices, and higher quality.

You’d think that, despite the actions of a few individuals, policymakers would embrace this pro-consumer movement. Sadly, you’d be wrong.

The response to the sharing economy from many policymakers in the United States and abroad can be best described as “ban first, ask questions later.” Even in Las Vegas—a city where nearly anything goes—consumers are forbidden from taking advantage of the benefits that the sharing economy can bring in the form of Uber and Lyft. And now Portland, Los Angeles, and San Francisco are all suing Uber for refusing to play by their old regulatory playbooks.

Defenders of the status quo claim the old rules protect consumers. But it’s more likely the rules just protect established, politically connected interests. As we detail in a new study published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, consumers can benefit more from the sharing economy’s better service options than they can from one-size-fits-all “consumer protection” rules that end up doing very little to benefit consumers.

Being cautious about how we regulate doesn’t mean that bad actions go unpunished. When companies do bad things they ought to be held accountable for them. But civil and criminal laws are already on the books in all 50 states that give wronged persons the ability to seek recovery against those who are at fault.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/30/why-do-progressives-want-to-ban-uber-and-airbnb.html




-----------------------------------------------------------------
A very strange parallel with Bitcoin.