"Stringent regulations are good for everyone. Well...except for me when I want a cheap ride somewhere!"
"Stringent regulations are good for everyone. Well...except for me when I want a cheap ride somewhere!"
Raised believe they are exceptional. Rules and regulations do not apply.
Bernie Sanders trashed Uber publicly, and then it was revealed that he uses it all the time. Gotta love liberals.
Uber is championed by Rubio and other republicans. They believe Uber will swing big city to conservative voting. LOL...
This isn't the first time that Rubio has championed the company, nor is it the first time Republicans have eagerly claimed it as their own. Last year, the Republican National Committee launched a petition "in Support of Innovative Companies like Uber."
... Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, noting that Democrats currently govern "most big U.S. cities," wrote that Uber "can help the GOP gain control of the cities."
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-14/is-uber-democratic-or-republican
Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:
Bernie Sanders trashed Uber publicly, and then it was revealed that he uses it all the time. Gotta love liberals.
Ben Carson said Charles Darwin was under the influence of the devil when he developed his theory of evolution. Gotta love them conservatives!
Feel the bern in your wallet wrote:
"Stringent regulations are good for everyone. Well...except for me when I want a cheap ride somewhere!"
I'm a liberal millennial and I despise both of these companies.
Not everything works great under laissez faire economics. Many things do, but not everything. Our vast public road system would blow if you had to pay a quarter to each private property you drove past. What if the fire department decided not to come to your house and save your scorched kids because you were late on your monthly payment?
What if you were declined health care necessary to give you a higher quality of life because you are a janitor and only make $25k? What if you and your succeeding generations were thrown into poverty because some freak illness drained that household of their primary income, that person's ability to work, the spouses ability to work and care for the sick, then all their saved assets, and finally their life?
Oh wait, that actually does happen all the time in the US.
Feel the bern in your wallet wrote:
"Stringent regulations are good for everyone."
Said no one ever. Do you realize that states are already actively regulating these companies? You don't think any measures should be taken to deal with potential insurance issues or ensure the safety of passengers?
Maybe you're right. Maybe we should greet any mention of regulation with outrage and flecks of spittle. Maybe we should let pharmaceutical companies market drugs for off-label uses, let oil companies drill wherever they want, let the invisible hand decide whether mine shafts are properly ventilated, let producers make and sell food without oversight or labels, and let banks make loans to people who definitely can't pay them back. Once the jack-toed boot of the government is off our throats, we'll finally be able to breath that unregulated, all-American, asthma-inducing air.
Dora the Agoraphobiac wrote:
Feel the bern in your wallet wrote:"Stringent regulations are good for everyone."
Said no one ever.
...
Except you, just now...
Information technology is the least regulated industry, which is why it has seen the most innovation in recent decades.
libs offended by everything wrote:
Dora the Agoraphobiac wrote:Said no one ever.
...
Except you, just now...
Information technology is the least regulated industry, which is why it has seen the most innovation in recent decades.
Ever notice that Silicon Valley liberals want everything to be regulated except for themselves? The average SF tech worker thinks that pharma companies should be forced to accept certain prices for their drugs and doctors should be forced to work for a certain wage, while they themselves get rich in what is as close to a laissez faire industry as we have.
Hypocrites abound wrote:
Ever notice that Silicon Valley liberals want everything to be regulated except for themselves? The average SF tech worker thinks that pharma companies should be forced to accept certain prices for their drugs and doctors should be forced to work for a certain wage, while they themselves get rich in what is as close to a laissez faire industry as we have.
This x 1000
Thank you for perfectly describing the hypocrisy I am surrounded by every day
Software "engineers" would absolutely flip shit if they had to conform to the codes and red tape that every other type of engineer has to.
libs offended by everything wrote:
Except you, just now...
Information technology is the least regulated industry, which is why it has seen the most innovation in recent decades.
No, I didn't. I want some common sense regulations to protect myself against private interests. There is a tremendous amount of middle ground between "no regulation" and "stringent regulation". Frankly, it's astounding that you seem to disagree with even basic consumer protection.
The growth in the IT sector is a global trend, not a national one. You are mistaking correlation for causation.
Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:
Hypocrites abound wrote:Ever notice that Silicon Valley liberals want everything to be regulated except for themselves? The average SF tech worker thinks that pharma companies should be forced to accept certain prices for their drugs and doctors should be forced to work for a certain wage, while they themselves get rich in what is as close to a laissez faire industry as we have.
This x 1000
Thank you for perfectly describing the hypocrisy I am surrounded by every day
Software "engineers" would absolutely flip shit if they had to conform to the codes and red tape that every other type of engineer has to.
Like what?
Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:
Hypocrites abound wrote:Ever notice that Silicon Valley liberals want everything to be regulated except for themselves? The average SF tech worker thinks that pharma companies should be forced to accept certain prices for their drugs and doctors should be forced to work for a certain wage, while they themselves get rich in what is as close to a laissez faire industry as we have.
This x 1000
Thank you for perfectly describing the hypocrisy I am surrounded by every day
Software "engineers" would absolutely flip shit if they had to conform to the codes and red tape that every other type of engineer has to.
While it's true that we tend to think of technologies as "health neutral", it's also true that few far more people are likely to die via unregulated pharmaceutical dispersal than too many iPhones. You're not seriously comparing the development of Angry Birds to blood thinning drugs and steroids, are you?
Wtfunny wrote:
Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:This x 1000
Thank you for perfectly describing the hypocrisy I am surrounded by every day
Software "engineers" would absolutely flip shit if they had to conform to the codes and red tape that every other type of engineer has to.
While it's true that we tend to think of technologies as "health neutral", it's also true that few far more people are likely to die via unregulated pharmaceutical dispersal than too many iPhones. You're not seriously comparing the development of Angry Birds to blood thinning drugs and steroids, are you?
No, you are.
I'm comparing the hoops needed to jump through to design a basic physical structure versus an app used by millions. And I don't deny the significant ability of smartphones to cause traffic accidents or distract runners going through traffic, but most would say that's a risk you choose to take.
I doubt they think about it enough to make the connection. They just like these services because they work.
IT has grown because it is new and has wide potential. The problems that it leads to in the world still have to be dealt with, for instance, of having unlicensed drivers ferrying people around (most of whom, by the way, make very, very low wages) or of dramatically raising rents and pricing people out of a city--while paying minimal taxes and thus undermining the very public infrastructure on which they rely.
Feel the bern in your wallet wrote:
"Stringent regulations are good for everyone. Well...except for me when I want a cheap ride somewhere!"
Liberals have never been against free enterprise, they're just against fucking people over. I understand that's a complex concept that itty-bitty conservative minds have a hard time grasping to I'll give you an example:
Offer a service that's performed admirably and liberals will consume it, offer a service that's so cheap because the provider cooked their grandparents for lard to finance it then conservatives will consume it.
Offer a service that convenient, safe and easy to use and liberals will consume it, offer a service where you get to shoot a 10 year old minority kid in the head just for fun then conservatives will consume it.
If you want a service that will charge 10 times the normal rate when there's a quick buck opportunity like a shooting in an area then conservatives will provide it (then complain people don't consume it because they're lazy).
Uber itself said that gouging people just trying to get out of an unsafe situation was unfair, as it's no different than saying "Oh, you were in a car accident and you'll die before to get to the next ER? Cool, now my rate is $10,000 a minute".
Now conservatives who think that stealing and extorting from people is nothing but a "business model" think it's OK to fuck people over and call it "free enterprise". Uber and AirBnb apologize when someone gets fucked over and work to change their practices to make sure it doesn't happen again. Conservatives get all exciting when they fuck someone over and work to make sure it happens again.
I doubt you understand the difference, but you can't say I didn't try to explain it in rational terms.
Wtfunny wrote:
it's also true that few far more people are likely to die via unregulated pharmaceutical dispersal
That is your own arbitrary conjecture. You haven't a shred of evidence to prove that pharmaceutical regulation saves lives.
...and don't bother saying "thalidomide!" because neither did that episode occur in an unregulated healthcare industry nor does one example prove the rule.