Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by kofejnik on Monday November 25, 2019 @11:14AM (#21629465)

> You don't think its worth protecting the trade of taxi-driving? Used to be the case you could make good tradesman money to be able to afford a house and a family on a taxi salary.

No. Regulated taxis used to be a racket; of course they provided (somewhat) decent living for those who participated, although most money went to the medallion ownert.

I don't see why the needs of a few thousand cabbies (per city) should trump the needs of the millions who clearly prefer Uber.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by Quarrelsome on Monday November 25, 2019 @11:20AM (#21629581)

So why do farmers in the EU deserve protection or coal in the US? We do subsidise some things. What makes that choice happen?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by karakot on Monday November 25, 2019 @01:50PM (#21631399)

lobbying

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by Quarrelsome on Monday November 25, 2019 @01:57PM (#21631482)

^^ which is kinda my point and also arguably reasons for shit like Brexit. If we, the intelligentsia make "no subsidies" arguments for taking away well paying jobs for the working classes while allowing other (lobbied) industries to accept subsidies then we're making ourselves complicit in the hypocrisy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still opera... by kofejnik on Tuesday November 26, 2019 @10:54AM (#21639340)

you can subsidise the poor cabbies all you want, as long as you don't take Uber away from me

also, don't call me 'intelligetsia', it is insulting

[ Parent | on HN ]