So they're activists. For what cause? Simple: for maximizing their own profit.
They have no interest in making it easy for Lyft (as they have repeatedly shown), or for licensed taxi drivers that are required by their license to cover the whole county, or for the people living in somewhat remote (but affordable) areas that won't benefit because no Uber driver wants to drive there without a surging incentive.
As soon as they can, they'll use their war chest to lobby harder than German taxi companies could ever do. And they won't do it for the general public's benefit and they won't do it "for the taxi drivers".
We don't need to import every flawed idea from overseas, and establishing a new monopoly where there's now a certain amount of (regulated) competition certainly belongs in that category.
They have no interest in making it easy for Lyft (as they have repeatedly shown), or for licensed taxi drivers that are required by their license to cover the whole county, or for the people living in somewhat remote (but affordable) areas that won't benefit because no Uber driver wants to drive there without a surging incentive.
As soon as they can, they'll use their war chest to lobby harder than German taxi companies could ever do. And they won't do it for the general public's benefit and they won't do it "for the taxi drivers".
Lobbying is not a déformation professionnelle of taxi company bosses, but of people with money. In this case this means: Uber, not the taxis.
We don't need to import every flawed idea from overseas, and establishing a new monopoly where there's now a certain amount of (regulated) competition certainly belongs in that category.