Not to be glib or disrespectful to Nebraskans, but..
OOOOHHH…I bet their shakin’ in their boots now! Im sure the possible loss of the Omaha market is devastating to their business model! Uber/Lyft I guess you’ll have to move that all important NE Market down the priority list from…I don’t know…#44 to #49!
Ride-sharing is FRAUD on a mass scale. Don’t be fooled. It’s not about “deregulation” or “creating competition”. It’s about all that CASH that your local municipality was taking IN from issuance / transfer of transportation business permits and their subsequent regulation. They want that. They could care less about anything else. City revenue LOST is literally ride-sharing law-breakers PROFIT. How, you ask? Simple, ride-sharing private corporations aggressively refuse regulation and refuse paying for business permits claiming a “new” business model (well, because “GPS”). Where city made MILLIONS – city will now get PENNIES. There is nothing else but a THEFT from municipal coffers. Ride-sharing private corporations will flood local markets – and minimum wage drivers will wait for hours for 1 single smartphone dispatch. Who benefits from all this madness? Ride-sharing California-based oligarchy. That’s who.
If THEY truly wanted a FAIR competition – they would follow SAME STANDARDS and would agree to pay for SAME EXACT expenses that all our local transportation small businesses are paying daily. That would be FAIR….
But that would mean a FAIR competition. And ride-sharing private corporations would lose that in A DAY – so they perpetuate a MYTH of them being special and different…. “well, because GPS”. Ride-sharing is a FRAUD on a mass-scale. Shame to all local politicians who sell out their local economies and their local businesses for the sake of 2-3 California ride-sharing oligarchies.
Why are you so hostile to voluntary exchange? If a person doesn’t want to do business with one of these companies, either as a buyer or seller, then he doesn’t have to (unlike the city governments you seem to love so much, which get their revenue by forcing productive people to pay up or else). Do you honestly think the existing crony taxi system is “fair”?
It’s hilarious to see the politically connected participants in the taxi scam huffing and puffing about “safety” and “fairness” as creative entrepreneurs challenge their stupid old racket. If these new companies make a big profit, good for them. In case nobody’s ever told you, in a free market profitability is a sign that a seller is satisfying the preferences of consumers. Oh my, we can’t have that in Amerika!
Word to the wise: here’s how to translate the word “fair”. When a business lobbies for “fair” competition, they are usually asking for LESS competition, and the consumer will have higher prices, less choice, or both.
Not to be glib or disrespectful to Nebraskans, but..
OOOOHHH…I bet their shakin’ in their boots now! Im sure the possible loss of the Omaha market is devastating to their business model! Uber/Lyft I guess you’ll have to move that all important NE Market down the priority list from…I don’t know…#44 to #49!
Ride-sharing is FRAUD on a mass scale. Don’t be fooled. It’s not about “deregulation” or “creating competition”. It’s about all that CASH that your local municipality was taking IN from issuance / transfer of transportation business permits and their subsequent regulation. They want that. They could care less about anything else. City revenue LOST is literally ride-sharing law-breakers PROFIT. How, you ask? Simple, ride-sharing private corporations aggressively refuse regulation and refuse paying for business permits claiming a “new” business model (well, because “GPS”). Where city made MILLIONS – city will now get PENNIES. There is nothing else but a THEFT from municipal coffers. Ride-sharing private corporations will flood local markets – and minimum wage drivers will wait for hours for 1 single smartphone dispatch. Who benefits from all this madness? Ride-sharing California-based oligarchy. That’s who.
If THEY truly wanted a FAIR competition – they would follow SAME STANDARDS and would agree to pay for SAME EXACT expenses that all our local transportation small businesses are paying daily. That would be FAIR….
But that would mean a FAIR competition. And ride-sharing private corporations would lose that in A DAY – so they perpetuate a MYTH of them being special and different…. “well, because GPS”. Ride-sharing is a FRAUD on a mass-scale. Shame to all local politicians who sell out their local economies and their local businesses for the sake of 2-3 California ride-sharing oligarchies.
Why are you so hostile to voluntary exchange? If a person doesn’t want to do business with one of these companies, either as a buyer or seller, then he doesn’t have to (unlike the city governments you seem to love so much, which get their revenue by forcing productive people to pay up or else). Do you honestly think the existing crony taxi system is “fair”?
It’s hilarious to see the politically connected participants in the taxi scam huffing and puffing about “safety” and “fairness” as creative entrepreneurs challenge their stupid old racket. If these new companies make a big profit, good for them. In case nobody’s ever told you, in a free market profitability is a sign that a seller is satisfying the preferences of consumers. Oh my, we can’t have that in Amerika!
Word to the wise: here’s how to translate the word “fair”. When a business lobbies for “fair” competition, they are usually asking for LESS competition, and the consumer will have higher prices, less choice, or both.