> most cities restrict supply of taxis to keep prices high and fix prices as the behest of the taxi industry
Why is it always left out that a limited number of taxis is good for society as well? Taxis operate on public roads, pollute public air, cause traffic congestion the public must deal with, cause car accidents and hit pedestrians. When you're not catching a ride taxis (and Ubers) are a nuisance and society has decided to limit their negative side effects.
It's not "elegant" because the people harmed in the parent comment's examples are not customers (or at least a large percentage of them are not). There is no way for them to "vote with their wallets."
? The argument is that there are reasons other than inflating prices to regulate the number of taxis on the road. Cars have externalities that society as a whole pays for, it's reasonable to limit those externalities.
But with limiting taxis you increase the amount of cars on the streets, aren't you? People probably won't stop traveling because there are no free taxis. They jump in their own car.
Not in the cities where I live. They generally park in specific hubs made for them by city planners in front of strategic places like train stations, hotels etc.
It's Germany though..
Why is it always left out that a limited number of taxis is good for society as well? Taxis operate on public roads, pollute public air, cause traffic congestion the public must deal with, cause car accidents and hit pedestrians. When you're not catching a ride taxis (and Ubers) are a nuisance and society has decided to limit their negative side effects.