> This was done in exchange for stability in price, stability of service and other benefits i.e. we're getting something for our money.

If you'd read the history in my linked post, it is clear that these were not salient issues and the regulation was pushed through by municipal carriers and private trolley operators who could not effectively compete in the market. The regulation was not desired by taxi/jitney operators nor requested/supported by the public.

While it is true that regulation can be a general benefit, it is often the case that it is supported, at least in part if not in full, by firms/industries desirous of legal protection and elimination of competition where they cannot effectively compete.

What "we" the consumers got was less regular service, areas that are typically avoided by cab drivers and thus underserved, legally enforced monopoly pricing, "and other benefits."

>> The excess capacity of vehicles owned for personal transportation is huge. I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll link to another thread discussing Uber (and friends) where I participated that makes my position very clear[0].

> I glanced through it, I don't find the argument convincing.

Let's be clear here, the point you are explicitly disagreeing with is that there is a large amount of excess capacity in the vehicles which are currently owned and operated for personal use. To disagree you must claim that there is not much excess capacity in these vehicles. To weakly support this position you would need to argue one of two things:

1) That vehicles owned and operated for personal use are in use for the vast majority of the day (i.e. they don't sit parked for more hours than they spend driving).

OR

2) That vehicles owned and operated for personal use are filled to seating capacity in the vast majority of the trips that they make (i.e. every time someone drives, they have more seats filled than empty).

To strongly support your position you'd have to argue both of the above. I am not trying to artificially box you into a corner, but I can truly think of no other arguments to support the premise that there is not a large amount of excess capacity in vehicles owned and operated for personal use.

>> They are providing significant competition in an industry which has seen consumer-harming regulation for a century.

> #1 Is it consumer-harming?

I argue yes for the simple fact that the supply is artificially constricted. Fares are higher than they would otherwise be and there are fewer suppliers of rides-for-hire, thus underserving geographic areas or limiting capacity at peak hours.

> The medallion system has limited the number of cabs on the road which minimizes the pollution and congestion they cause, it also makes sure they pay their fair share for things like road repairs since they're using a public good for commercial use.

I will not divert this into an argument as to the size or costs of these effects. If pollution, congestion, or fair-share-of-costs are concerns, then the appropriate way to address this is to address the actual concerns - use costs, congestion fees, gas taxes, or any other similar policies address these concerns while also providing revenue that could (in an ideal world) be used to pay directly back into road maintenance.

That being said, medallions are privately owned, and the rents accrue to the holders of the medallions. Thus one of your benefits, namely "makes sure that they pay their fair share for things...." is not even true. The medallion system does literally nothing but reduce the number of cabs and increases the fare.

> Because the cars are generally awful shades of yellow or orange pedestrians, cyclists and other cars are safer as well. These are things that benefit society as a whole.

Citation needed. Seriously. You are claiming that the color of a car impacts the rate of accidents they are involved in. Besides this being fairly absurd, you are conflating cab coloring with regulation of taxi services. If the color of cars providing a taxi service is of such public concern, then it would be much easier (and less costly) to require enhanced visibility modifications to such cars, for example reflective sections or only allowing yellow cabs (which are not even the norm in many areas - not everywhere with cabs is NYC). Why should we resort to a consumer harming medallion system to make sure cabs are garish? What should we do about the widespread black car industry of other cars for hire that have been around since long before Uber and compatriots?

> #2 if it is, does it harm consumers more than it benefits society at large?

> Believe it or not, many people like to know ahead of time how much a cab ride is going to cost so they can plan accordingly.

You can easily check the fare before the ride with the Uber app, so I'm not entirely sure about the argument here.

> At the end of the day Uber is going to regulate the market using their market power to whatever extent they can. They simply aren't going to bring an efficient, competitive market place where everybody wins.

They are not going to devote their efforts to doing so, this is correct. But the actions they are taking are moving the market in that direction anyway - for example in the parent article, it is leading to moves which will allow enhanced competition in the Portsmouth market. Even where taxi regulation change not a whit, UberX and similar (ride-sharing version, not taxi-dispatch version) will allow price competition against incumbent taxi services, and excess capacity at peak times and in underserved areas. Even if the price they can charge is restricted, the latter two benefits remain.

> You don't get valued at $40 billion when all you have are easily substituted assets (it's an app, a brand, and some logistic management software) unless you have a long term angle of somehow making massive profits which according to basic economics are assumed to be impossible in healthy markets.

Well, as covered extensively above, the market for taxi services is far from healthy, so there's a large immediate opportunity for Uber in soaking up the excess demand that current taxi services simply do not fill.

That being said, even if Uber and similar move the taxi service and ride sharing industries toward more health, there is a huge difference between economic profit (revenue > opportunity cost) and accounting profit (revenue > outlays). Consumer electronics are a good example - there are commodity parts and labor easily available, but there are many firms in this market with healthy profit margins and prices have been tumbling for consumers for decades.

I am not saying that Uber and similar are identical to consumer electronics, but there is obviously a significant network effect and first mover effect which contribute to the valuations we see.

I read your posts as seeming to assume that I am naively painting some panglossian image of Uber as the champion of the everyman, providing cheap and wonderful transport for all. This is not the view that I hold. If my understanding of your tone is incorrect, I apologize. I would like to engage only on the salient points of the issue. I have identified several I find important and supported them above. I will summarize below.

1) The current regulatory regime was implemented primarily for the benefit of incumbent and municipal public transit providers.

2) There is excess capacity and some level of sunk cost in vehicles owned and operated for personal transportation (they are not constantly utilized or filled to capacity, but a single owner bears significant fixed costs that are not adjusted for this fact).

3) Medallions artificially restrict the supply and raise the price of cab services, without significant benefit to consumers.

4) Uber and its competitors (whom you repeatedly do not acknowledge) are providing a service that is of objective value to consumers.

5) Uber and its competitors are, in so doing, providing competition at a level unseen for nigh on a century to the incumbent taxi service industry.

I don't find your arguments compelling, you don't like mine. Whatever, it happens.