We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day

The result of [the ‘sharing economy] is that in many ways, private tech companies have ended subsidising new forms of public services, for the public good.

That ought to make them the darlings of the Left. Yet unfortunately, the Left just can’t rid itself of its urge to regulate, legislate and tax. And in their efforts to thwart consumer freedom, they have a useful ally in the shape of a legal framework which was developed for the analogue age.

Uber, for example, is the poster child of the sharing economy. Yet 2017 is make or break year for its European ambitions – and at its core is an age-old political battle of Left versus Right.

This battle isn’t on the streets of San Francisco or London; Uber has already won over consumers. Instead, the fight is moving to a soulless courtroom in Luxembourg. The question is whether the company is a technology or a transport company; and the answer is incredibly complex.

Daniel Dalton

15 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Julie near Chicago

    I’m almost at the end of Atlas, which I’ve been re-reading for the severalth time after a lo-o-ong absence. An astonishing, stunning book in many ways. I must say one sees it and takes it a little differently from how one did on first meeting, 50+ years ago. (But, of course, I was a fan from the first.)

    (It would help greatly if its detractors understood that it is a work of fiction, which presents certain idealized people in a particular, idealized situation, and one of the kinds of forces the Good Guys must fight. Nobody ever said that the book actually represents, in full and in toto, Miss R.’s understanding of actual reality. Although we would also do well to remember that she knew, in her own personal experience, that of which she spoke, especially in the Soviet misallocation of resources; and, in the U.S., the Wesley Mouches and James Taggarts of this world. Not to mention the Meedja.)

    Anyhow, S.I.’s quotation of Mr. Dalton’s words made me think, “Yup. I just read about it in Atlas Shrugged.”

    SO, S.I., a very good quote. (Too bad the “consumers” in the book weren’t as smart as many of their real-life counterparts.)

    I should think that there should be no question at all. Uber (with or without the umlauts?) is a transportation company that uses technology. So does any bus company, or any airline. If Euro “law” is so convoluted that its ministers can’t see that simple fact, then, gosh, there must be something wrong with it. But yes, I did read the article and I do take the point, which makes it clear that this is pure Atlas: How do we rearrange the regulatory structure, and our presentations and statements, so that the resulting public perception is such that the Officially Recognized Taxi Companies can continue their monopolistic practices (which City Hall loves. All those lovely license fees!) without upsetting said public, on the ground that Uber’s not a taxi, er, transportation business, hence out of the legitimate (!) purview of the licensing board.

    How do you keep the public from (rightly!) feeling cheated, while retaining the good will of the taxico’s so as to continue the scam?

  • Paul Marks

    I agree with Julie about Atlas Shrugged – in the days when I used to read book I read Atlas Shrugged is a day. It held my attention – and it is indeed a great work.

    As for the post – I find it difficult to follow.

    What does “ended subsidising new forms of public services” mean?

    And why should the left like Uber? It is a private business seeking profit, the left want to destroy private enterprise.

    The aim of the left is that of Mr O’Brian in “1984” – a boot coming down on a human face (the face of humanity), for ever. That is not an accidental by product of leftist action – that is the objective. So why would they like Uber?

    It is true that Uber has courted the left – for example by denouncing President Trump (even though Mr Trump has done nothing to Uber) and withdrawing from advisory panel, but the left will not show gratitude. As Stalin said “gratitude is an emotion felt by dogs” – leftists crush such sentiments in themselves.

    No company has courted the left more slavishly than “Starbucks” – and what is the first place that leftists smash up in their riots? Starbucks – indeed the leftists make a point of smashing it up.

    Uber will be no different – and the European Commission are just college students who have got older, got government jobs and put on expensive suits. Their hearts (I suspect) continue to be committed to the leftist vision of smash-burn-kill.

  • Alisa

    Paul, you missed the “shared economy” part – which has been all the rage on the young and idealistic Left for the past several years. Superficially, these kids should be thrilled with Uber, because it is the epitome of the “shared economy” – unfortunately for Uber, they are also in the business of making money, not just sharing, and that spoils the whole thing for the aforementioned Lefties.

  • Deep Lurker

    My understanding is that Ayn Rand had her own theory of aesthetics that called for fiction to use deliberately idealized characters and situations.

    On the other hand, the best short review of her fiction that I’ve seen is:

    “I find the prose purple and turgid, the plots hacknyed, the heros uninspiring and unlikely, and the author’s personal life unworthy of much to emulate. However, the villains in her novels are utterly completely dead on.

    “And my observed experience is that the people who don’t like that last observation, are the kind of people that she is talking about.” – Mark Atwood

  • Laird

    Paul asked what does “ended subsidising new forms of public services, for the public good” means. I shared his confusion until I read the article and realized that it was simply a case of sloppy writing. In context, what Dalton meant was that tech companies have “ended up” (i.e., “resulted in”) subsidizing new forms of public services. The omission of that one word makes a big difference.

    Julie, you think that there should be “no question at all”, but that just shows that you don’t understand Uber. It doesn’t own the cars, it doesn’t employ the drivers or determine when or where they work. It is nothing at all like a bus company or airline. It really is just a communications medium, a technology company which coordinates communication between independent drivers and consumers. The only aspect of its operations which even suggests that it might be something else is that it sets the rates and collects the fares, which it then shares with the drivers. And if the European court rules against Uber that feature will probably be the hook upon which it hangs its decision. But the underlying purpose will be to protect existing taxi companies and the revenues they generate for governments.

  • Fraser Orr

    and the answer is incredibly complex.

    Not true, it’d be more accurate to say “the answer has been made incredibly complex.” The fact that it is complex, or that it even matters is the whole point, no? It reminds me of that lawsuit over whether a jaffa cake was a cake or a biscuit. It is a distinction that only matters for really stupid reasons.

  • It reminds me of that lawsuit over whether a jaffa cake was a cake or a biscuit. It is a distinction that only matters for really stupid reasons.

    Indeed, I think the point about Über (with or without the umlaut) is that it throws a spanner into the works as far as local government regulation of taxis goes and highlights both the cosiness of the relationship between regulated taxi firms and their supervisors in local government as well as the contempt with which they hold taxi customers.

    If taxis weren’t expensive then Über wouldn’t exist, nor attract the level of support which it does.

    I must admit to being a late comer to Über, only having registered with them in November of last year, but the ability to know in advance what the likely cost is from point-a to point-b, be able to pay electronically and to view the taxi on the map as it makes its way towards me is both useful and reassuring.

    Long live Über!

  • bobby b

    “Long live Über!”

    Uber is an incredibly brilliant idea whose aim is simply to get around “worker protection” laws such as unemployment compensation, tax withholding, workers compensation, wage and hour laws, and the like.

    It turns “workers deserving of protection” into private contractors with no such protections.

    Whether you like Uber or not depends on where you stand in relation to such laws. If you believe that the complex web of Department Of Labor laws, rules, and regs are well-founded and needed, you will disapprove of Uber, as it is merely a construct to allow the big-money people to avoid application of such laws. Uber allows for the company to make profits without any worker protections. It is the libertarian option. It is the antithesis of Big Union.

    If you believe that the Laws, rules, and regs were established for improper reasons, or have been converted to improper purposes, then you will approve of Uber. Uber allows us all, as potential drivers, a choice of when and where and for how much we want to work.

    That the left is turning against Uber is no surprise. It is their natural enemy.

  • It turns “workers deserving of protection” into private contractors with no such protections.

    They bleat about zero-hour contracts and agency workers too, completely oblivious to the fact that all three things are consequences of their own policies.

  • Paul Marks (February 18, 2017 at 8:56 pm)

    “No company has courted the left more slavishly than Starbucks. And what is the first place that leftists smash up in their riots? Starbucks! Indeed they make a point of smashing it up.”

    This seemed pithy enough to me that I thought it worth repeating. (I’ve re-punctuated it and very slightly rephrased; Paul and others comment if interested.)

    As a slogan to offer companies urged to adopt a PC position, it might have value.

  • John B

    “…private tech companies have ended subsidising new forms of public services, for the public good.”

    What on Earth does that mean?

    Private anyfirm is ‘subsidising’ any good/service when it risks capital to provide that good/service. If they have added enough value to that good the public will decide it is ‘for their good’ and buy it.

    How much value added determines the price a consumer will pay, and that price minus the production cost = profit, the return on the capital at risk.

    The good the consumer buys has greater value to them than the money they give in exchange, therefore the consumer is richer.

    It is the consumer who decides what ‘new’ public services are for the public good via the free market process.

    No tech company can decide what is for the public good.

    Governments think they can decide what is for the public good which is why we end up in an economic mess.

    I wonder if the author is confusing ‘a public good’ with ‘for the public good’ – not the same thing.

  • CaptDMO

    Here, I can help.
    Uber is a transportation service.
    With prejudice,no appeal.
    My usual fee is waved.
    Someone translate that into Luxembourgianese for me?

  • lucklucky

    “That ought to make them the darlings of the Left. Yet unfortunately, the Left just can’t rid itself of its urge to regulate, legislate and tax.”

    The Left is about Power, nothing else. That last paragraph explains it.

  • Eric

    Superficially, these kids should be thrilled with Uber, because it is the epitome of the “shared economy” – unfortunately for Uber, they are also in the business of making money, not just sharing, and that spoils the whole thing for the aforementioned Lefties.

    The original idea, as I understood it, was you’d pick up a Uber fare going your way, and they’d pay a little to Uber and part of your gas money. That would be a sharing economy. But with people approaching it like a part time job, Uber is nothing more or less than a taxi matching service. I’ve don’t understand why anyone would consider that “sharing”.

    And cities make tons of money managing taxi monopolies. Of course they hate it.

  • Alisa

    they’d pay a little to Uber and part of your gas money

    How’s that not a part-time job? Because it is supposedly as smaller part of one’s time?