Yet the two questions are inevitably tangled up, because both touch on the way incumbentsare regulated. One would hope that regulators protect consumers, employees and the publicby making it more difficult for drunks and sexual predators to drive cars, for firetraps to hostunsuspecting tourists, and for employers to exploit workers. But some regulations seemdesigned more to protect insiders than to protect consumers.
不过,这两个问题不可避免地被搅在一起,因为它们都触及了现有从业者受到监管的方式。人们希望监管机构通过让醉酒者和性侵者难以当专车司机、易失火建筑不能接待毫无戒心的游客、以及雇主无法剥削工人,来保护消费者、雇员以及公众的利益。但是,一些法规似乎更倾向于保护局内人,而不是消费者。
Consider the New York taxi medallion system: you can’t drive a taxicab without one, andthey’ve been million-dollar assets at times, often owned by investors and leased to drivers at arate of $100 or more a day. New kids Uber and Lyft not only compete for passengers, theycompete for drivers too, who may prefer to pay commission to these new players than theflat fee to the medallion owner.
想想纽约出租车牌照制度:在没有牌照的情况下你不能开出租车,出租车牌照不时成为数百万美元的资产,往往归投资者所有,由其以每天100美元或更高的价格把牌照租给司机。菜鸟Uber和Lyft不止争夺乘客,它们还争抢司机。相比向牌照所有者交份儿钱,司机或许更倾向于把佣金交给这些新老板。
【释放P2P的经济价值】相关文章:
★ 廉价背后的代价
★ 奥运让北京更文明
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15