A proper solution to the taxicab crisis is not to co-opt the movement of gypsy cab drivers by the offer to take them into the system, but rather to destroy the system of restrictive cab licenses. FULL ARTICLE by Walter Block
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13182/defending-the-gypsy-cab-driver/
Defending the Gypsy Cab Driver
Previous post: The Fresh Air following Revolution
Next post: Ten Economic Blunders from History
{ 7 comments }
I’m always glad to see the black market expand.
When was this article written, 1945? Medallions haven’t sold for $30K for decades… they are well over a half a million. This article does not “defend” Gypsy cabs, he’s proposing an entire new system to replace the one that works just fine. Gypsy cabs are everywhere and serve the people he claims aren’t served. They already work off negotiated rates he says ought to be put in place and in the markets where the drivers chose to operate where he says they don’t operate. They are an efficient grey market. The regulatory environment protects cab drivers (who are mostly non-english speaking immigrants) as well as riders. Tourists who come to New York, and most New Yorkers, and the drivers need the meter – based on time and distance not the destination – to determine fair market rates.
Also, does he seriously think that taking personal assets from people who had NOTHING to do with the creation of the current system is a) legal and b) reasonable?
Considering medallions are nothing more than permission from a gang of thieves to operate without harassment(ie, protection money), your calling them “personal assets” is a less-than-justified conclusion.
The factual assumptions underlying this article are false, medallions in New York sell for over 1/2 million dollars, and New York auctions off medallions – the great auction in the mid seventies prevented New York from going bankrupt.
On a larger level, this is exactly what we want governments to do – turn their monopolies into private property. I am surprised that the author has opposed this general idea.
As for deregulation of the cab industry, I suggest the author actually look at those place in which deregulation was tried – it is a failure because the ease of entry creates a destructive price war from which no one benefits.
Cabbies’ benefit is not important. Consumers’ benefit is paramount, so bring on the price wars.
Vanmind: I’m sure your answer complies with your philosophic view. But in fact the consumer would be very ill served if there were no Taxicab Commission, no licensing, no inspections and no limits on the numbers of people who could carry fares for hire.
The decent professionals would get out of the business, taking their talents elsewhere. The money wouldn’t be there for them to stay in the business. It would get taken over by rats with no business ethics, no knowledge of city streets and no courtesy. You’d be riding in filthy, possibly unsafe cabs, paying whatever the person decided to charge you once he had your luggage in his trunk, and he’d triple or quintuple the price he quoted you when you got on board.
Plus, with no ID on display, he could just take you under a bridge and knock you on the head. When you came to in the gutter you’d have no idea who it was who took your watch, your wallet and your keys. He’d be up in your apartment by the time you got on your feet.
Welcome to the big city. There’s a reason for all those restrictive rules. Pay a little extra to ride in a clean, safe, certified cab.
You think so, you think he’s a pro Vanmind? You may be right, I have not seen him display any emotion yet.
Comments on this entry are closed.