EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Kuzman Iliev
Countries hate Uber and try to thwart the company by restricting, punishing, or removing it from the market. Always and everywhere.
But why is this prominent representative of the so-called "sharing economy" a thorn in the side of the French, Belgian, Bulgarian, and conceptually any government in general? What does he threaten them with so much and so directly?
First, Uber is living proof that monopoly prices — to the benefit of the provider of a given good/service, and to the detriment of its consumer — can only exist thanks to the state . And, of course, the repressive apparatus with which it imposes these monopoly prices and profits.
The practice of limiting supply, thereby achieving a higher than possible market price, leading to monopolies and cartels, and hence to higher prices and low quality, is possible in reality only if there is a barrier to entry for new players.
Whether through licensing requirements, administrative permits, and standards, the state hinders competition — usually with the motive of protecting it — creating an excellent platform for the benefit of those in power and their close associates.
Free market relations are politicized, corruption flourishes, and entrepreneurship, quality services, and a higher standard of living for citizens are thrown into the trash. With the advent of Uber, the authority of the state and the ability to redistribute market share administratively decrease, and its importance and role in the economic process suffer significantly. As does the ability to be capitalized by and for the benefit of private business interests seeking monopoly prices/profits.
Second, with its innovative model and modern technology, the company threatens the ideological need for the state in its capacity as a "protector/guardian" of the consumer and assessor of quality.
A system for evaluation, rating, driver's file and personal data, direct contact with him and market requirements for the quality and safety of the car - all this is an integral part of the company's business model and the realization of its human and innovative potential. And in order to survive in the market - where someone must voluntarily want to pay for its services - it itself has a strong incentive to maintain and develop these positive aspects of its activity.
This type of competition in certification will probably affect many other services, the quality of which we are used to today being "taken care of" by the state.
Drunk taxi drivers, rude behavior, midday robberies and harassment - one would say that there are no such problems with players "registered" as carriers. Kudos to the CPC, the CPC, the Automobile Administration Agency and other caring agencies that watch over competition and consumer welfare!
Three — This is an opportunity for an honestly earned income. And honestly earned income through economic (voluntary) means, unlike political (violent) means, reduces the scope for state extortion.
In addition , they somehow restore the self-confidence of the person who has gone through it - that he can offer services and goods for which someone else will voluntarily pay, that is, to be part of the division of labor and live with dignity.
Where does the need for a "welfare state" to take care of him or "find" him a job go—with the money forcibly seized from everyone else... Another blow to the image and need for a state, at the expense of natural human incentives and values.
And more: Uber bypasses bureaucracy and legally reduces its tax burden, paying taxes like any other company in our country, but in the mode of a software company, which they actually are—and not as a transportation company, which they are supposed to be.
De facto, the only unfair competition of the service is that it finds a way to "go overboard" with the tax and administrative burden, saving itself and its customers the political rent that the so-called "carriers" are forced to bear.
With the small detail, however, that this burden was not created "accidentally", it is a rational phenomenon. Otherwise, instead of stopping Uber, they would have eased the administrative obstacles for other "legal" players...
Last but not least, Hubert reminds people that everything meaningful and qualitative is created thanks to their own efforts, cooperation and exchange - peacefully and voluntarily. That the division of labor is useful and is the necessary rational basis of society. That people are ultimately inventive and good, thanks to which they successfully find a way to avoid the "services" of the aggressive monopolist of violence - the state. This is perhaps the greatest sin of the company, probably without it even realizing it.
Finale: the Uber ban is not just another perverse and harmful intervention by the state at the expense of all of us. Something that, to our shame and embarrassment, people have already become accustomed to.
This is a telling and severe blow against the embodiment of creativity, growth, efficiency, and entrepreneurial ideas of free people.
By its very existence, this company calls into question the sacred benefit of the shameful "scheme" in which we all live, namely, the prosperity of statesmen, politicians, officials, and their cronies at the expense of others.
A scheme — solely to the detriment of each of us, remaining outside the comfortable cocoon of the dark and dangerous status quo, created and maintained by and for the state...
The article was originally published on Kuzman Iliev's personal blog medium.com.
There are laws, why should Uber be above them? What is the basis for a better service being exempt from taxes? Any adequate company exempt from regulations and taxes in a given industry will offer a better service on the market, basic economics.
"The Last Meter" is not only against the state, but also against all taxi drivers who are not guilty of breaking the law, as well as anyone who tries to do something and pay taxes.