Disruption – Part One – the Taxicab Industry

The term “disruption” is everywhere in the popular press. You should “disrupt yourself” and new internet unicorns are going to “disrupt” all kinds of industries. Let’s think a bit about what really is disruptive and what isn’t. This post is going to start with the taxi industry. Later I will turn to other industries, where disruption was predicted but didn’t occur, and we can try to determine why.

I am very familiar with taxis, having traveled all around the country for business over decades and using taxis all the time in Chicago. Downtown Chicago is one of the few places where you could hail a street taxi at almost any hour of the day or night and assume that one could be found in a relatively short period of time (within 10-15 minutes at worst).

What were the elements of the traditional taxicab industry? They were as follows:
– Limited numbers of licenses were offered, and they were generally bought up and consolidated into a few taxicab companies
– The taxis operated mostly where they offered the highest returns; downtown, in wealthy areas, or near clubs and nightlife. While they theoretically served the entire city, in practical terms they ignored the poorer areas not only for the inherent danger but also due to the fact that it was hard to get a “return” trip once you dropped someone off, necessitating a drive back to a wealthier area and lost time with no earnings
– If you talked with a taxi driver, they typically worked very long hours and did not earn much money. Since driving a car an “entry level” skill, there were in practical terms an infinite number of possible drivers (a large supply) so the earnings of the drivers were as low as the market would bear (very low). The medallion owner then kept all the remaining profits
– The taxicab experience as a rider generally was lousy and perceived to be unsafe to single women. You didn’t have any information about the driver and they could be anyone; the low wages of being a taxicab driver also tended to attract drivers on the margins economically
– The taxicab used a consistent rate based on time or mileage plus a charge to start the meter and often specific additional charges such as tolls or airport fees. The costs could be high; for instance in Chicago if you left the city limits after the first city you were charged “meter and a half” – thus to travel out to a far suburb the fare could easily exceed $100. This was explained as the fact that the cab can’t get a local fare (they are licensed to pick up in Chicago, not the remote city such as Naperville) so they had to drive all the way back to the city to start working again. And on a big night like New Years’ Eve, it was a crapshoot to find a taxi since supplies were limited and not everyone was out driving
– The main role of the taxi associations was to limit new medallions (which increased competition) and manage the local regulators, who generally defined rates and other business conditions. After a while most cities had “regulatory capture” and didn’t issue new medallions and mainly kept the status quo
– If you were out of a major city, generally no one used cabs except maybe to go or be picked up at the airport. When I lived in Texas in the late 90’s I tried to get a cab and I was laughed at; cabs were terrible and no one took them. The alternative was drinking and driving or finding a designated driver

By now everyone knows what has happened to the taxicab industry. They have been disrupted practically out of existence by Uber (and to a lesser extent ride sharing apps like Lyft).

Read more

Antonin Scalia, Lawyer, Scholar, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1936-2016)

Screen Shot 2016-02-13 at 4.50.29 PM

“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves….

“A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy….

“The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law.”

Justice Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015.

Rest in peace.

UPDATE: Justice Scalia’s Great Heart. Please read this.

Why I am not worried about President Trump appointing judges.

[While I was finishing this post, I saw the terrible news that Justice Scalia died. God rest his soul. The GOP Senate majority should not permit President Obama to replace Justice Scalia, and should slow-walk any appointment he may make until after January 2017. That empty seat will be and should be a campaign issue. It raises the stakes considerably for the next President.]

The other day a friend asked me: “what kind of judges would Trump appoint?”

I responded:

“They will be the best, the smartest legal scholars we have, people who know the Constitution up and down, the whole thing, and especially our second amendment, which no one will touch, not while I am President, the second amendment is sacred, and they will be outstanding judges, judges who will be fair, but also do justice, and keep our country safe, so that criminals like the guy who killed Kate, beautiful Kate in San Francisco, people like that will go to prison for a long, long time, or back to Mexico, where they belong, if they are here illegally. And the judges I appoint will follow the law carefully, and they will always do what is good for America.  And I know some of the best people in the country who will advise me on which judges to pick, great lawyers, great trial lawyers, and I know lawyers who are great negotiators, the best in the country, some of these guys are killers, not nice guys, but tough, smart, incredible lawyers, and legal scholars, from top law schools, the best law schools, and they know who the best people are, not necessarily people you have heard of, but the best, and we will appoint amazing judges. Trust me, the American people will be very proud of the judges we pick.”

This is of course a spoof of Mr. Trump’s speaking style.

However, a little research discloses that my satire was pretty close to what he actually said when he was asked this question:

Read more

Without Churchill, India’s Famine Would Have Been Worse

There’s been quite a bit of clamor going on the past week about Winston Churchill. First Marc Andreessen made a rather poorly received joke about Indian anti-colonialism on Twitter a few days ago. Then, in last night’s Democratic debate, Bernie Sanders referenced Churchill as a foreign leader to be emulated.

I’m an avid follower of Andreeson. He tossed out a flippant comment, probably without giving it much thought, and inadvertently got caught in the middle of a hornet’s nest. I’m certainly no fan of Bernie Sanders’ socialist proposals, but I do appreciate his point of view. He made a good point about Winston Churchill. It’s something unfortunately not shared by others in his party.

In response to these two events, the left wing camp has been working overtime to consign the legacy of Churchill to history’s dustbin, and one of their preferred vehicles has been the Bengal famine of 1943. The hipster-Jacobins at Vox.com have written a piece documenting Churchill’s supposed war crimes including his alleged complicity in the famine. They’re all based on rumor, heresay, quotes taken out of context, and statements by political and personal rivals. If you feel like diving into the pseudo-journalistic dumpster you can go search for it, but I’m not going to give it any more attention than it deserves, which is very little.

What I will provide is the Churchill Centre’s rebuttal.

When the War Cabinet became fully aware of the extent of the famine, on 24 September 1943, it agreed to send 200,000 tons of grain to India by the end of the year. Far from seeking to starve India, Churchill and his cabinet sought every way to alleviate the suffering without undermining the war effort. The war—not starving Indians or beating them into submission—remained the principal concern.

The greatest irony of all is that it was Churchill who appointed, in October 1943, the viceroy who would halt the famine in its tracks: General Archibald Wavell immediately commandeered the army to move rice and grain from areas where it was plentiful to where it was not, and begged Churchill to send what help he could. On 14 February 1944 Churchill called an emergency meeting of the War Cabinet to see if a way to send more aid could be found that would not wreck plans for the coming Normandy invasion. “I will certainly help you all I can,” Churchill telegraphed Wavell on the 14th, “but you must not ask the impossible.”

I would hope that faith and reason would lead us to see through the falsehoods of leftist revisionists. Sadly, most people now are being fed the biases of the “Explainer Journalism” view of the world, so the record needs to be set straight.

A Short Story – VJ+71

 

(I meant to have a historical piece about an early and most mysterious resident of San Francisco ready for posting today, but … good intentions and all that, plus we were struck by sudden inspiration for the next Luna City Chronicle … which has been selling nicely and has some nice reviews on Amazon. Yes, there will be at least several more Luna City volumes – especially since the first book ends on a cliff-hanger, we haven’t gotten around to more than a handful of Luna City citizens, and I am convinced more than ever now, that light and amusing trifles are necessary diversions in bleak times.) 

Early on an August Sunday morning, Miss Leticia McAllister combed out her long grey hair, rolling and neatly pinning it into an old-fashioned hair-net, and surveyed her appearance in the dressing table mirror. The hat, gloves and scarf that she would wear against the chill – for the sanctuary of the First Methodist Church of Luna City was enthusiastically air-conditioned against the blistering heat of a Texas late summer – all lay in order on the dressing table, next to Miss Letty’s Sunday handbag, which held a fresh handkerchief, her house keys, and the envelope with her weekly offering. Hat, bag, scarf and all carefully matched, and coordinated beautifully with the colors of Miss Letty’s flowered and full-skirted summer dress.

I never had beauty or elegance, Miss Letty told her reflection, with clinical satisfaction – but I could manage chic by paying attention, and I had the brains enough to be charming. Alice was the one for elegance! Oh, my – did she turn heads! Hard to believe it has been seventy-one years to the day. Every man in Schilo’s Delicatessen on Commerce on VJ-Day – they all turned to look at her, as she came in the door. You could have heard a pin drop; I think most of them thought that a movie star had come to San Antonio, but she was really only the chief secretary to an insurance company manager, for all that she was only twenty-four. And he kept trying half-heartedly to seduce her, the wretched little Lothario. She wrote complaining about that to me, all the time that I was in England, and then in France. Alice had a hatpin, though – and she could use it, too.

Read more