Uber vs Taxis, unfair competition?

Le Regard Libre N° 18 - Vincent F. Pickert (our guest of the month)

With Uber banned in Spain, Nevada and India, anti-Uber protests in Paris and debates at Toronto City Council, tension is mounting around the Californian giant. Indeed, the alternative service to traditional cabs is causing concern: anyone can, at low cost and with just a few clicks, take advantage of or offer cab services. For Uber Pop, the most controversial service, no license, training or certification is required: registration on the app is all that's needed.

Unfortunately, this disruptive technology suffers from its innovative nature. Cab unions, politicians and citizens respectively accuse Uber of unfair competition, lawlessness and destroying traditions - in London, for example, with the famous “Cabs”. In the spirit of conservatism and justice, the “sharing economy” service is being banned from more and more parts of the globe.

These “regularization” policies don't just violate the principle of economic freedom: they're simply useless. While the service was intended to compete with an old cab monopoly that had become ineffective and had no desire to improve supply, the multinational is faced with inflexible unions, preferring to turn to prohibition rather than review their business model. These bans are endorsed by politicians who bow to pressure from the unions and falsely wish to follow the public will.

What are the solutions, apart from the one put forward by Salima Moyard, a socialist member of the Geneva Grand Council, who advocates the introduction of a tax that would itself finance a common subsidy fund for cabs serving neglected regions (a solution worthy of a planned economy)? Liberalization. Or rather, the total abolition of all rules, privileges and permits. By allowing Uber to operate wherever it wishes, by abolishing cab privileges (e.g. borrowing bus routes), or by putting an end to the costly licenses cabs have to hold in order to operate, we'll create genuine competition in a free market, with supply focused on the consumer (and therefore the public) and not on safeguarding personal interests.

Photo credit: © agefi.com