At The Financial Times: Uber & Lyft fight for their place in New York’s ‘Taxi Wars’. Political Observer comments

Uber and Lyft ,and the others cited in this article, are Taxi Services not ‘ride-hailing services’ and are regulated in the Public Interest by the City of New York. Something the Financial Times can’t seem to grasp! But theses companies, backed by the deep pockets of the Silicon Valley Robber Barons: and their electronic trinkets produced in the sweat shops of Asia, where the workers commit suicide. Their Enlightened Capitalism Model is predicated on these Sweat Shops, and gouging their customers for the latest iteration of their trinkets. As the discarded toxic junk is dumped in the Third World : these are the model citizens, tax evaders on a grand scale. Who have the ability to buy television time to propagandize against the Public Interest. And in favor of ‘The Free Market’ even as that Mythology is in near total collapse, except for that notorious 1%.

These two quotations from the Uber executives, makes plain that these representatives of that Silicon Valley clique, are acting in the Public Interest of the under-served. When did the Public Interest enter into the vocabulary of  the Robber Barons of  Silicon Valley. I’ve worked with these Engineers, the human factor is utterly absent from their consciousness, they don’t live on a planet peopled by other humans!

“These sweeping cuts to transportation will bring New Yorkers back to an era of struggling to get a ride, particularly for communities of colour and in the outer boroughs,” said Joseph Okpaku, Lyft’s vice-president of public policy.

Josh Gold, an Uber spokesman, said: “The city’s 12-month pause on new vehicle licences will threaten one of the few reliable transportation options while doing nothing to fix the subways or ease congestion.”

Political Observer


About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.