Consumers – not the state – should decide Uber’s fate – The Property Chronicle
Select your region of interest:

Real estate, alternative real assets and other diversions

Consumers – not the state – should decide Uber’s fate Market mechanisms are a better way to determine the future of a company than state intervention

The Analyst

There is a widening divide in the United Kingdom between those who embrace economic freedom and the so-called “gig economy”, and those who are deeply cynical about it. The Labour Party is led by Marxists, and the Conservative Party has refused to make the positive case for capitalism and freedom – instead they seem intent on surpassing Labour’s economic illiteracy.

A prime example of the creeping war on business was Transport for London’s announcement last September that Uber was to lose its private hire license. TfL cited concerns over public safety and security in claiming Uber was not “fit and proper” to operate in the capital.

Putting to one side the irony of TfL lecturing other organisations about being “fit and proper”, the real reason why the Californian firm could lose its license – if the appeal that’s begun today fails – is because it has been a successful disruptor of established interests.

Before Uber came along, black cabs operated within a de facto monopoly. This inevitably led to examples of bad service, high prices and an arrogant attitude when faced with competition. While it is perfectly natural to feel uneasy about having your industry come under threat from a competitor, the answer is to innovate, not stage protests or lobby to get the competition outlawed.

Subscribe to our magazine now!