Rare post from me, but this is close to my heart, being a long term (South) London resident. So... fuck the black cabs, really, they are truly shit in comparison to Uber. It's not just the card payment issue, it's the attitude you get from most of the drivers. They're not really interested in providing a cab service for London. They want to take bankers and tourists on short journeys around central London, and drive people to the airport and back. It can be difficult to find a black cab that will take you any distance "south of the river", so much so, it's even a cultural catch phrase here "Sorry gov, I ain't going south of the river".
Then, even when you get one, they really do cost. An Uber from central London to my place is about half the cost of a black cab. They're also not that comfortable a ride. Bumpy and cold usually. The only plus point is that they do take 5 passengers as standard, so there is that, minor, minor point....
Now, due to the black cabs being over priced, and really a bit shit, in true British fashion, rather than face actually making some kind of meaningful change to the system, a fudge has been added. Something called a "mini cab", or more accurately a "private hire vehicle". This is a just a car, no taxi meter, that you can hire to take you from A to B for a fixed price, but you can't hail it on the street, you have to call for one, or go to a pick up location. These vary wildly, from a professional, almost Uber like service such as Addison Lee, mentioned in a previous post, to a banged up, probably non street legal piece of crap driven by someone who looks like they've been awake 72 hours. Often they tout for business on the street (illegally) and, factoring in how late it is/cold the weather/drunk you are, a price is agreed... then often later disputed.
Anyway, mini cabs are licenced to operate as they do, although there are some totally illegal ones running around. The point is, black cabs never really served their purpose, so the mini cab system just kind of evolved into the cracks. It's the only type of cab most Londoners would have ever considered using.
Now we have Uber. Clean new cars, professional drivers, cheap, payments sorted in advance, phone app, the works. It's heaven. Actually, I find it interesting, all the US commenters on here talking about Uber being less professional, and operating illegally. The situation is totally different here. It is a superior cab ride in every way, and they are licenced private hire vehicles, so it's all legal. The black cab industry is trying to say that the Uber app on the drivers phone is effectively a taxi meter, and allows what is effectively street hailing, not sure how that is going, is there a court case?
Anyway, just wanted to get it off my chest. I will be so fucked off if a great service is killed, simply to protect a highly dysfunctional industry that has previously felt no pressure at all to improve their level of customer service. We all hate them anyway. This is an almost perfect "buggy whip manufacturer" situation, please let the black cab just die.
Phew....
p.s. I did see a protest by black cab drivers, about Uber, in central London recently, trying in vain to whip up some public support... they're delusional.
Fuck you for your anti-social attitude. This person's child, who is a citizen of your society, needed urgent medical attention. Really, are you that lacking in compassion you would stand by and say "fuck you" to someone dealing with a sick baby?
Different Euro countries have different systems. The NHS in the UK is not supported by any insurance company, apart from itself I guess. Medical insurance goes on top of that so you can have the good looking receptionist and stuff.
The interesting thing about population is that its rate of growth (excluding immigration) falls as societies become more developed. The best way to achieve a stable, or even falling, population, is to promote development in currently underdeveloped countries. I'll probably get a [citation needed] comment at this point, but the data is out there.
No need for Malthusian doom and gloom. Development will solve the "population problem".
The problem is the environmental impact of our current path of development. A steady move to a more environmentally sustainable development model, combined with a development push will (well, "may" is a probably a better word) lead to a better, more viable, planet for all.
Mate, your story is truly a fucking disgrace. How anyone can be defending the system you are having to operate in is truly beyond me. From a Euro perspective, the anti state health care position seems delusional. How can it possibly be in the wider social, moral and economic interest to be placing a family such as yours into such a situation?
A question for you. What is it that limits the speed of light? If photons are massless, what other property of photons or the universe sets their speed?
Yeah, but the extra tax take means the government can afford to create MORE JOBS. Does this sound like a bad idea? It's a circular flow people, taxation doesn't create or destroy, its redistribution. Which, just happens to prop up aggregate demand, put more income in to working people's pockets and they spend it. It's good for the economy. Think of it as fiscal stimulus. Does that taste better?
Thank you, someone who understands the circular flow of income. Tax isn't about there being more or less "money" or spending, its about placing some of the output of society under collective democratic control. Its about, you know, sharing some stuff a bit. That's alright, isn't it?
You can slice statistics a few different ways here though. Remember that the free trade models make two major predictions:
1. Total welfare is increased by free trade. This seems to be the case on average. Higher GDP, lower real prices for consumer goods as production moves to more efficient locations or process. This is unambiguously a good thing (as a first approximation).
2. There will be a redistribution of income between the factors of production leading to what is called factor price equalisation. This is much more complicated (and less supported by empirical evidence). Anyway, what this means is that labour say (one of the factors of production) should tend to have its income equalised over trading countries. Here is where your stagnant wages for the working class in the US over the last 40 years comes from.
Needless to say, lots of noise is made about 1 in favour of free trade, much less about 2.
Then there would be a Streisand Effect on the Streisand Effect.
Thank you for explaining the joke. Say, aren't you also the guy who explained "ya see, it's because the chicken was over there before, and it didn't want to be there, so it had to cross the road in order to be on the other side. Get it?"
Yeah, but that's not really explaining the joke though....
You're completely ignoring the degree of brainwashing and how many US citizens genuinely believe George Washington and Barrack Obama are the greatest leaders in the world.
There's a problem with this macho "zero-tolerance" concept also. No situation is ever 100% black and white clear. Zero-tolerance plays into the fantasy that things are just that, so we'll enforce the rules like God... yeah it is a bit all twisted and biblical.
>>>why people were looking to take out mortgages and other types of household credit in the first place.
Because the government-owned schools taught us to buy-buy-buy even if we had to go deep into debt to get our shiny-new toys (yes that includes shiny-new houses). The solution is for schools to teach people to say no, and save money first, and then pay cash.
>>>A bit of spend on some reasonable social housing
Sorry but I'm not working my ass off to buy somebody else a house. That's a violation of my rights and theft of labor. Let those persons save their own money to buy a small $40,000 starter home. Or rent, like I did when I first started.
No, instead you're working your ass off to pay for the collapse of the financial system. Personally I'd rather chip in a bit to make sure everyone in my neighborhood has decent accomodation.
As for the theft of labour argument, hahaha, what are you? A Marxist? Cause that's exactly what Marx says your boss is doing. The big wake up call from the current crisis is that you're going to be taxed regardless. So, you can vote for your taxes to pay for bombs and bailouts, or houses and hospitals....
The wider question is why people were looking to take out mortgages and other types of household credit in the first place. A bit of spend on some reasonable social housing so those that couldn't really afford it didn't need to turn to the credit system for a decent place to live would have been much cheaper than the bailout.
There were some other structural issues. The so called "death" of monetarism people called because the money supply was rapidly growing and inflation was staying low may have been premature. The money (credit) had to go somewhere, and it went into assets. A speculative boom being the result.
Hi again, been busy and away sorry. I wanted to post a reply sooner... Anyway,
I definitely agree with your first observation, but do you really consider it to be a controversial statement in 2009? We have an entire field of Behavioral Economics that attempts to explain the observed market inefficiencies, and irrational actions by market participants.
We do have Behavioral Economics, and its very interesting. Sadly, much of what they have to say is boxed off into a little side field. It doesn't make much impact on mainstream academic economists and as for undergraduate teaching.... Micro every year, Behavioral and other hetrodox micro focused topics a third year elective, if lucky.
Still even if things are being cleaned up slowly, the idea of a self equilibrating, stable, free market is still a corner stone of our policy making apparatus, even if not made explicit. This is what I'm getting at when I talk about sacrilege. I made a simplification here, true, but there is a sense in much of economics that gov interference is the "least bad option" and that if we just had the guts to stick it out, Pareto efficient market allocations would result.
I think this is what you were longing for in your original post when you said:
"What is desperately needed in economics is a more reality based outlook that attempts to truly deal with the social and economic problems of wider society, rather than a bunch autistic, antisocial, arrogant geeks who don't even realise they're only allowed to keep doing what they're doing because it serves the interests of the powerful"
Your ranting about the powerful, I didn't get until I pasted your quote into my browser, and the spell checker choked on the word "realise". I think that the general political bias between the US and the UK is fundamentally different, and I once heard it described as follows: In the UK, you look at a rich man and say, "I want to get that guy," whereas in the US, we look at him and say, "I want to be that guy."
Haha, yeah we do tend to have a different outlook on that. What bothers me slightly about what you have written, is the faintly mocking tone "ranting about the powerful". Do you really think this isn't an issue? Economics over its history has a tendency to espouse ideas that legitimise (there's another one for the spell checker) the current distribution of income and wealth in society. In this, it acts in the interests of the powerful. Don't think I'm someone who wants to "tear it all down", but unless we are honest about the nature of the distribution of power, and its corresponding capacity to shape debate, we will be unable to level a rounded critique. Part of the baggage of classical and neoclassical economics is an attempt to put this kind of critique off the table. It places much of the economic fabric of society outside human agency, leaving you in a position akin to criticising gravity for someone falling off their roof.
When we move outside the west to the situation facing developing countries, this power aware discourse becomes even more important.
Do you really think any credible economist would argue that all government interference in the economy is a sacrilege? Business executives, maybe. But economists?
I mean, even the monetarist Milton Friedman wasn't against all government interference in the economy (he was, of course, against most interference). And as an aside, he also argued the ridiculousness of the "Economic Man", a walking, talking utility maximization problem, and that was in the 70s.
Your criticism, as it applies to Wall St. executives, I think is valid. But can you name any serious economist who claims that the government shouldn't be allowed to interfere in the workings of the market?
No, I can't name a serious economist making an impact today, but I'm not really writing about economists, my points were more an attack o
Slashdot Mirror
It's a toaster...
Hi All,
Rare post from me, but this is close to my heart, being a long term (South) London resident. So... fuck the black cabs, really, they are truly shit in comparison to Uber. It's not just the card payment issue, it's the attitude you get from most of the drivers. They're not really interested in providing a cab service for London. They want to take bankers and tourists on short journeys around central London, and drive people to the airport and back. It can be difficult to find a black cab that will take you any distance "south of the river", so much so, it's even a cultural catch phrase here "Sorry gov, I ain't going south of the river".
Then, even when you get one, they really do cost. An Uber from central London to my place is about half the cost of a black cab. They're also not that comfortable a ride. Bumpy and cold usually. The only plus point is that they do take 5 passengers as standard, so there is that, minor, minor point....
Now, due to the black cabs being over priced, and really a bit shit, in true British fashion, rather than face actually making some kind of meaningful change to the system, a fudge has been added. Something called a "mini cab", or more accurately a "private hire vehicle". This is a just a car, no taxi meter, that you can hire to take you from A to B for a fixed price, but you can't hail it on the street, you have to call for one, or go to a pick up location. These vary wildly, from a professional, almost Uber like service such as Addison Lee, mentioned in a previous post, to a banged up, probably non street legal piece of crap driven by someone who looks like they've been awake 72 hours. Often they tout for business on the street (illegally) and, factoring in how late it is/cold the weather/drunk you are, a price is agreed... then often later disputed.
Anyway, mini cabs are licenced to operate as they do, although there are some totally illegal ones running around. The point is, black cabs never really served their purpose, so the mini cab system just kind of evolved into the cracks. It's the only type of cab most Londoners would have ever considered using.
Now we have Uber. Clean new cars, professional drivers, cheap, payments sorted in advance, phone app, the works. It's heaven. Actually, I find it interesting, all the US commenters on here talking about Uber being less professional, and operating illegally. The situation is totally different here. It is a superior cab ride in every way, and they are licenced private hire vehicles, so it's all legal. The black cab industry is trying to say that the Uber app on the drivers phone is effectively a taxi meter, and allows what is effectively street hailing, not sure how that is going, is there a court case?
Anyway, just wanted to get it off my chest. I will be so fucked off if a great service is killed, simply to protect a highly dysfunctional industry that has previously felt no pressure at all to improve their level of customer service. We all hate them anyway. This is an almost perfect "buggy whip manufacturer" situation, please let the black cab just die.
Phew....
p.s. I did see a protest by black cab drivers, about Uber, in central London recently, trying in vain to whip up some public support... they're delusional.
Do you have children?
Fuck you for your anti-social attitude. This person's child, who is a citizen of your society, needed urgent medical attention. Really, are you that lacking in compassion you would stand by and say "fuck you" to someone dealing with a sick baby?
Seriously? What the fuck is wrong with you?
So, at least in this case, no, it is not an "american thing". It is, most definitely, a "London thing".
In London it's actually a "London Ting"...
Different Euro countries have different systems. The NHS in the UK is not supported by any insurance company, apart from itself I guess. Medical insurance goes on top of that so you can have the good looking receptionist and stuff.
Ahhh, a lucid post that sums up the developmentalist approach to dealing with the "population problem".
Thank you.
The interesting thing about population is that its rate of growth (excluding immigration) falls as societies become more developed. The best way to achieve a stable, or even falling, population, is to promote development in currently underdeveloped countries. I'll probably get a [citation needed] comment at this point, but the data is out there.
No need for Malthusian doom and gloom. Development will solve the "population problem".
The problem is the environmental impact of our current path of development. A steady move to a more environmentally sustainable development model, combined with a development push will (well, "may" is a probably a better word) lead to a better, more viable, planet for all.
smoking stunts your growth.
But I haven't got a growth...
So, how tall are you?
Mate, your story is truly a fucking disgrace. How anyone can be defending the system you are having to operate in is truly beyond me. From a Euro perspective, the anti state health care position seems delusional. How can it possibly be in the wider social, moral and economic interest to be placing a family such as yours into such a situation?
It's only words, but I feel for you.
Yeah, and those guys who work for private companies, man they rock. I wish everything in society could be run by corporations, it would be so awesome.
All socialist states eventually deteriorate into mass starvation and conflict.
Hahahaha, yeah. Involved in two wars and with 10% of your population on food stamps, how's that free enterprise system working out for ya?
A question for you. What is it that limits the speed of light? If photons are massless, what other property of photons or the universe sets their speed?
Yeah, but the extra tax take means the government can afford to create MORE JOBS. Does this sound like a bad idea? It's a circular flow people, taxation doesn't create or destroy, its redistribution. Which, just happens to prop up aggregate demand, put more income in to working people's pockets and they spend it. It's good for the economy. Think of it as fiscal stimulus. Does that taste better?
Thank you, someone who understands the circular flow of income. Tax isn't about there being more or less "money" or spending, its about placing some of the output of society under collective democratic control. Its about, you know, sharing some stuff a bit. That's alright, isn't it?
You can slice statistics a few different ways here though. Remember that the free trade models make two major predictions:
1. Total welfare is increased by free trade. This seems to be the case on average. Higher GDP, lower real prices for consumer goods as production moves to more efficient locations or process. This is unambiguously a good thing (as a first approximation).
2. There will be a redistribution of income between the factors of production leading to what is called factor price equalisation. This is much more complicated (and less supported by empirical evidence). Anyway, what this means is that labour say (one of the factors of production) should tend to have its income equalised over trading countries. Here is where your stagnant wages for the working class in the US over the last 40 years comes from.
Needless to say, lots of noise is made about 1 in favour of free trade, much less about 2.
Thank you for explaining the joke. Say, aren't you also the guy who explained "ya see, it's because the chicken was over there before, and it didn't want to be there, so it had to cross the road in order to be on the other side. Get it?"
Yeah, but that's not really explaining the joke though....
Go back a couple of hundred minutes and people believed everything was created by a big man in the sky!!
You're completely ignoring the degree of brainwashing and how many US citizens genuinely believe George Washington and Barrack Obama are the greatest leaders in the world.
There's a problem with this macho "zero-tolerance" concept also. No situation is ever 100% black and white clear. Zero-tolerance plays into the fantasy that things are just that, so we'll enforce the rules like God... yeah it is a bit all twisted and biblical.
>>>why people were looking to take out mortgages and other types of household credit in the first place.
Because the government-owned schools taught us to buy-buy-buy even if we had to go deep into debt to get our shiny-new toys (yes that includes shiny-new houses). The solution is for schools to teach people to say no, and save money first, and then pay cash.
>>>A bit of spend on some reasonable social housing
Sorry but I'm not working my ass off to buy somebody else a house. That's a violation of my rights and theft of labor. Let those persons save their own money to buy a small $40,000 starter home. Or rent, like I did when I first started.
No, instead you're working your ass off to pay for the collapse of the financial system. Personally I'd rather chip in a bit to make sure everyone in my neighborhood has decent accomodation.
As for the theft of labour argument, hahaha, what are you? A Marxist? Cause that's exactly what Marx says your boss is doing. The big wake up call from the current crisis is that you're going to be taxed regardless. So, you can vote for your taxes to pay for bombs and bailouts, or houses and hospitals....
The wider question is why people were looking to take out mortgages and other types of household credit in the first place. A bit of spend on some reasonable social housing so those that couldn't really afford it didn't need to turn to the credit system for a decent place to live would have been much cheaper than the bailout.
There were some other structural issues. The so called "death" of monetarism people called because the money supply was rapidly growing and inflation was staying low may have been premature. The money (credit) had to go somewhere, and it went into assets. A speculative boom being the result.
Just a few thoughts...
specifically, Information Technology Law and IP Law.
Yeah, but are you on THEIR side, or OUR side..?
Hi again, been busy and away sorry. I wanted to post a reply sooner... Anyway,
I definitely agree with your first observation, but do you really consider it to be a controversial statement in 2009? We have an entire field of Behavioral Economics that attempts to explain the observed market inefficiencies, and irrational actions by market participants.
We do have Behavioral Economics, and its very interesting. Sadly, much of what they have to say is boxed off into a little side field. It doesn't make much impact on mainstream academic economists and as for undergraduate teaching.... Micro every year, Behavioral and other hetrodox micro focused topics a third year elective, if lucky.
Still even if things are being cleaned up slowly, the idea of a self equilibrating, stable, free market is still a corner stone of our policy making apparatus, even if not made explicit. This is what I'm getting at when I talk about sacrilege. I made a simplification here, true, but there is a sense in much of economics that gov interference is the "least bad option" and that if we just had the guts to stick it out, Pareto efficient market allocations would result.
I think this is what you were longing for in your original post when you said:
"What is desperately needed in economics is a more reality based outlook that attempts to truly deal with the social and economic problems of wider society, rather than a bunch autistic, antisocial, arrogant geeks who don't even realise they're only allowed to keep doing what they're doing because it serves the interests of the powerful"
Your ranting about the powerful, I didn't get until I pasted your quote into my browser, and the spell checker choked on the word "realise". I think that the general political bias between the US and the UK is fundamentally different, and I once heard it described as follows: In the UK, you look at a rich man and say, "I want to get that guy," whereas in the US, we look at him and say, "I want to be that guy."
Haha, yeah we do tend to have a different outlook on that. What bothers me slightly about what you have written, is the faintly mocking tone "ranting about the powerful". Do you really think this isn't an issue? Economics over its history has a tendency to espouse ideas that legitimise (there's another one for the spell checker) the current distribution of income and wealth in society. In this, it acts in the interests of the powerful. Don't think I'm someone who wants to "tear it all down", but unless we are honest about the nature of the distribution of power, and its corresponding capacity to shape debate, we will be unable to level a rounded critique. Part of the baggage of classical and neoclassical economics is an attempt to put this kind of critique off the table. It places much of the economic fabric of society outside human agency, leaving you in a position akin to criticising gravity for someone falling off their roof.
When we move outside the west to the situation facing developing countries, this power aware discourse becomes even more important.
Do you really think any credible economist would argue that all government interference in the economy is a sacrilege? Business executives, maybe. But economists?
I mean, even the monetarist Milton Friedman wasn't against all government interference in the economy (he was, of course, against most interference). And as an aside, he also argued the ridiculousness of the "Economic Man", a walking, talking utility maximization problem, and that was in the 70s.
Your criticism, as it applies to Wall St. executives, I think is valid. But can you name any serious economist who claims that the government shouldn't be allowed to interfere in the workings of the market?
No, I can't name a serious economist making an impact today, but I'm not really writing about economists, my points were more an attack o