You’d think when smashing a car with a baseball bat that you’d make quite sure that you your core grievance was valid. But then, this is not really about legalistic issues at all, it’s about thugs thinking they can strong arm their own way through violence.
2 Likes
It largely is. Yeah, there’s bit of convenience added, but the big draw is reduced cost over liveried taxis; it’s not hard to find a taxi in Paris at least. And when you value cost over everything else, what you get is Wal-Mart. And once Wal-Mart moves in, everyone making rational cost-based choices drive out the other businesses. Which reduces choice, competition, and overall social benefit (even taking into account the benefits of reduced cost). You beggar your neighbor too long, then they stop buying your goods because they can’t afford them, and Presto! No one has a job any more. This is the “lemon market” theory at work (with some suitable modifications)-- the bad actors drive out the good, and destroy the market. Me? I like having choices. I like having small businesses around me. I like being able to look my waiter or cashier in the eye without having to feel embarrased that I’m making a living wage and they’re not. Wal-mart’s business model is subsidized by your taxes because most of their wages (even with the “generous” new pay raise) mean their employees qualify for federal and state benefits. Remember that the next time you go to Wal-Mart because it’s got eggs ten cents cheaper than at the local market (if you have any of those left).
Actually, the core grievance IS valid. Uber POP is illegal in France.
And the incidents of violence were small and isolated. The vast majority of the protests were peaceful.
This is bullshit. You’re conflating two very different issues, one being industrial regulation, the other strong competition. If there was no regulation at all, then anyone could set up a taxi, and the opportunity would all be in favour of the independents. Internet companies live fast and die fast, and they’ll just as soon be displaced by another company that can do it better (in whatever form better takes, which as likely as not is to provide a better offer to the drivers).
Regulation only ever works in favour of the entrenched interests, and when it comes down to it is rarely actually about consumer protection, which in any case better communication might alleviate better than laws ever could.
Edit: To be clear, regulation is often used precisely to stifle strong competition, which is exactly what is happening here.
2 Likes
I envy you. If I travel alone and cannot outsource the cognitive load, the taxi it is.
Less expensive, yes. More convenient, for me not. And the environment can go fuck itself when I am too tired to care.
I’m making the choice you disapprove of. So what.
1 Like
No, the big draw is the convenience. I live in New York: I can’t call a cab, but I can call an Uber driver. A cab won’t pick me up from my house (unless it happens to be passing in front of it), but an Uber car will. Cabs in New York have a massive shift change every day at 5 p.m., so just as people get off work, dozens upon dozens of cabs refuse to pick them up; this obviously doesn’t happen with Uber.
I told this story in a different Uber thread, but a few months ago I was in a seedy part of Brooklyn at 1 a.m. and my wallet was stolen. Since I had my phone, I called an Uber car to pick me up; otherwise I would’ve had to walk several miles through bad neighborhoods to get home – there certainly weren’t any taxis wandering around Bed-Stuy.
Me too. That’s why I’m glad Uber is around.
2 Likes
I’m not talking about New York, I’m talking about Paris. It’s currently legal in New York, knock yourself out. I don’t care. I gave up trying to fix the US. Don’t try to fix France. That’s all I ask.
1 Like
No problem. But you were claiming that other things aren’t an option. They are. Maybe one you dislike, but there are other options.
I suggest you just not come to France any more. We don’t want American style unfettered corporatocracies here.
While it is true that regulation is often used to stifle competition, especially in the US, that is NOT the case here. There are good reasons for regulating potentially dangerous services such as taxis, airplane traffic, etc.
Again, I refer you to lemon market theory. Without the regulation, you lose the good players, and end up with the scum of the earth providing the service. It’s why we have consumer safety regulations. It’s why the US has the FDA. And it’s why taxis have to be licensed, insured, properly trained and vetted, and liveried.
Don’t like it? Don’t come to France. I’m not trying to ban Uber in the US, simply pointing out that France has decided otherwise, has good reasons for that, and it’s no business of yours (unless you live in France) what they decide.
Especially since it seems you’ll be beaten by a mob if you try.
Company offering cheap car service ≠ scum
Thugs beating peaceful drivers = scum
1 Like
Never crossed one, because I’ve never seen one. Ah, but that’s life in America.
2 Likes
Is ignorance a defence? Come on.
Nope. I don’t excuse not caring. I do it proudly, like you! Except I call it what it is. Rare and often an error worth apologizing for.
crossing a picket line is an ethical choice. humility is a choice.
Sending a twitter to the president of france mocking their nation, also a choice.
2 Likes
Riot: from Old French riote ‘debate,’
Do you have a viable choice? Lawyers are routinely specializing to only a tiny part of the lawscape, in a tiny part of the world. You seem to be proposing that we should be well-versed in every law of every area we walk into. That sounds impractical to me, bordering on impossible.
I’m not apologizing for anything. I’m just irritated by people on high horses. Lately the internet seems to be full of them. So many high horse riders, so few caltrops…
If you read me closely enough, you’d note I said viable options, just to prevent this sort of quasi-argument. Of course there are “options” that you’d like me to take. But I dislike them more than what’s their price differential. Staying home huddled in a basement out of fear to not do Something Wrong, for whatever definition of “wrong”, is also an option. Also not on the viable list.
I was in France once, for a day. Food good, otherwise kind of meh.
Case in point. I am recently buying some little electronics modules from China. I talked with a friend who works in a parts shop, asked why they don’t stock them too; I’d pay up to 2-3 times more for being able to get one immediately off the shelf. But no - with the taxes, import customs, profit margin, regulations and legally imposed warranty I cannot waive even if I’d want to, the costs would be about at the level of the other, more costly alternatives.
So I end up stocking up with 10 pieces from Shenzhen, bought for the price of one here.
Do I have other (viable) choice?
Hint: I am not made of money, and not willing to just shut up and do without.
Nice to see baseball catching on in France.
I’m safer in Baghdad.
Of course she is. No Uber there.
“Viable” is a judgement. There is no objective standard for it. You created a false dichotomy based upon your own prejudices.
Okay. Do I have other, better choice?
Case in point: ten CP2102 modules for the price of one locally acquired. (Okay, it is a FT232 one which is slightly better but for the applications in question it is functionally equivalent.) What is a better choice, given that I can either spend more than what’s reasonable for one little board, or have a fistful of 'em for the same money (and be able to just throw them at silly projects on a whim, things that wouldn’t get done because they’d be too costly otherwise)?
Help me decide, please, help me solve the conundrum - buy one or ten for the same cost?
(Similar cases with DC-DC switching converters, LEDs, stabilizers, other parts… and I know I am running a risk of getting a fake, that’s what tests are for. I bought duds from brick’n’mortar stores too so these won’t let me skip the tests anyway.)
I’ll leave that to Muslim Algerians.
2 Likes
You made a judgement. Both options are viable. You decided that the one was better. Yay for you. I’d choose the other way, but that’s me. If I only need one board, buying nine others and shipping them is a waste and environmentally unfriendly. I don’t care what your choice is; that’s not the point. That you simply don’t like a choice doesn’t mean that it’s not viable.
From dictionary.com, because I’m too lazy at the moment to drag out my OED, definition 5:
"practicable; workable: "
Both options are viable.
For the actual case in point, public transit is viable. For you, maybe not desirable; again, that’s your choice. But it’s still viable. It is practical. Millions of people do it every day. Don’t mistake your laziness for revealed truth.
Oh for chrissakes that is one of the most annoying lines trotted out by people with oversized chips on their shoulder.
Pop quiz:
How far can a second alcoholic beverage be from a customer in multnomah county?
What is the speed limit for dual carriageway s in Wales?
Where can you legally Jay walk in California?
What are the legal reporting requirements when serving nuts in a non professional setting?
And my favorite, between local, state, and federal government, how many statutes are passed per month?
5 Likes
