New Taxi License Debate - Half to Brokers?

[Jake]

It takes 1-2 hours to get a cab Friday night in Calgary.

It takes 15 minutes to get one in Vancouver.

Doesn't make any sense to me... limiting cab licenses so much seems like a BC thing to do.

[Mr.Coffee]

the lack of cab licences is a correlation (not necessarily direct) to drunk driving and drunk driving accidents.

This next one is going to be a long sentence. Of course drunk driving cannot be condoned nor tolerated, but the very fact that there are senseless deaths which one could safely assume stem from cold winters mixed with poor judgement in impaired minds is enough to convince me that whatever powers that be that are preventing more taxis from hitting Calgary's streets are not only being irresponsible but on an entirely worse ethical level, they are quite frankly, wrong. Similar to the difference between negligence and gross negligence... the city is starting to wade into gross territory.

City of a million people and there's like 20 cabs, it's beyond ridiculous and completely reprehensible.

[Mr.Coffee]

^^ and I make the above statement with due regard to brokers or not. I don't really give a F who gets paid how much or what or who or really anything but seeing more cabs available on the streets.

[bizaro86]

Our elected representatives have decided not to make a decision on this issue, referring the problem back to the city's administrative staff for further study.

http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/215...ng-taxi-fleet/

[jammies]

Originally Posted by fotze

Here' a more realistic version of that scenario:
"Mr. Cab Driver, it took a........where are you from?"

"Nigeria"

"Ahhh, I love Nigeria, Jarome Iginla is from there. Hiccup. You are the best cab driver. Where do you drop me off"

"Yes, where are we headed"

"zzzzz"

More like: "Mr. Cab Driver, where are you from?"

"I'm not a cab driver, fotze. Put your wallet away. And why can't you remember how to get to YOUR HOUSE?!?"

[yads]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

To add an Alberta example and tie in all three levels of government look to grazing lease holders. The government leases land to the ranchers at well below market value. The ranchers can then sell that lease for big cash so it keeps new entrants out and transfers a bunch of cash to the established ranchers.

The big problem with these systems is how to unwind them. You can't cancel the dairy quota outright because some poor farmer may have just bought into the system.

Why can't you just offer to reimburse people who bought a license in the past x years? (2-5 might be reasonable.)

[GP_Matt]

There are options for that, but for something like the dairy board the cost would be prohibitive.
I found a 2002 article here http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/38 talking about the quota value and they pegged the dairy quota at $20 billion mostly in Ontario and Quebec.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

There are options for that, but for something like the dairy board the cost would be prohibitive.
I found a 2002 article here http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/38 talking about the quota value and they pegged the dairy quota at $20 billion mostly in Ontario and Quebec.

This report from fcpp shows that if licenses were indexed to population or employment, my off the cuff estimate of 1000 new licenses is not far off.

http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2608

"Last time Calgary issued new licenses in 1986 there were 1,311. With the exception of 100 new specialized licenses, the number is still the same. However if we adjust the number of licenses in proportion of population growth there should now be 2,146. Adjusted for general employment growth, there should be almost twice as many as in reality, 2,495."

[yads]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

There are options for that, but for something like the dairy board the cost would be prohibitive.
I found a 2002 article here http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/38 talking about the quota value and they pegged the dairy quota at $20 billion mostly in Ontario and Quebec.

You wouldn't need to reimburse everyone, just the people that bought in recently. Alternatively you can reimburse on a sliding scale, i.e. someone who bought the day before you unwind would get 100%, someone who bought in at the outset would get 0% (or maybe some nominal value).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by yads

You wouldn't need to reimburse everyone, just the people that bought in recently. Alternatively you can reimburse on a sliding scale, i.e. someone who bought the day before you unwind would get 100%, someone who bought in at the outset would get 0% (or maybe some nominal value).

Secondary sales make this tougher.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

This report from fcpp shows that if licenses were indexed to population or employment, my off the cuff estimate of 1000 new licenses is not far off.

http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/2608

"Last time Calgary issued new licenses in 1986 there were 1,311. With the exception of 100 new specialized licenses, the number is still the same. However if we adjust the number of licenses in proportion of population growth there should now be 2,146. Adjusted for general employment growth, there should be almost twice as many as in reality, 2,495."

A bunch of new licenses on a 1 time basis and then a yearly increase indexed to something (city size, population, taxi demand, whatever) would be a reasonable solution, imo.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

A bunch of new licenses on a 1 time basis and then a yearly increase indexed to something (city size, population, taxi demand, whatever) would be a reasonable solution, imo.

IMO supply management needs to be discontinued. As soon as a taxi license has a market value higher than 0, it is evidence of a market that favour suppliers over consumers. Increase the quota until the license value goes to 0, then drop the quota altogether.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

IMO supply management needs to be discontinued. As soon as a taxi license has a market value higher than 0, it is evidence of a market that favour suppliers over consumers. Increase the quota until the license value goes to 0, then drop the quota altogether.

I completely agree with you. If I was "Prime Minister for a Day" I'd spend it gutting supply management, but some sort of compromise is probably better than no changes at all. The intrenched interests are powerful in these situations. You have a few people benefiting a lot, and a small extra cost to everyone else. Those who are getting the benefit spend on lobbying, political donations, etc to maintain the system, and few other people are getting harmed enough individually to make a fuss.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I completely agree with you. If I was "Prime Minister for a Day" I'd spend it gutting supply management, but some sort of compromise is probably better than no changes at all. The intrenched interests are powerful in these situations. You have a few people benefiting a lot, and a small extra cost to everyone else. Those who are getting the benefit spend on lobbying, political donations, etc to maintain the system, and few other people are getting harmed enough individually to make a fuss.

What I'm saying is that a compromise that "permanently" entrenches supply management is not an acceptable compromise. Majority rules means we don't need to compromise with a minority that is holding the public hostage if the will is there.

And I suspect there's a correlation between drunk driving and cab shortages... if that's the case, there are certainly people who have been harmed in ways far greater than whatever benefit the license-holders are deriving.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by yads

You wouldn't need to reimburse everyone, just the people that bought in recently. Alternatively you can reimburse on a sliding scale, i.e. someone who bought the day before you unwind would get 100%, someone who bought in at the outset would get 0% (or maybe some nominal value).

As soon as you mentioned the system you would have every farmer selling their quota. Something else to consider is that banks will loan money against the value of the quota. No matter how you do it you are wiping out $20 billion.
The likely scenario would be to raise prices and use the money to compensate the current owners while slowly increasing the quota system until the value of the quotas approaches zero.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

As soon as you mentioned the system you would have every farmer selling their quota. Something else to consider is that banks will loan money against the value of the quota. No matter how you do it you are wiping out $20 billion.

The likely scenario would be to raise prices and use the money to compensate the current owners while slowly increasing the quota system until the value of the quotas approaches zero.

You're not wiping out $20 billion. You're returning it to consumers over time. Raise prices? We already pay way above market.

The thing about the dairy/poultry quotas is that to get the free trade agreements Harper wants, we will almost certainly have to get rid of the quota system.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by SebC

You're not wiping out $20 billion. You're returning it to consumers over time. Raise prices? We already pay way above market.

The thing about the dairy/poultry quotas is that to get the free trade agreements Harper wants, we will almost certainly have to get rid of the quota system.

Lower prices on dairy/poultry etc, more competitive export markets for things that Canadians are good at selling, and better prices on things we buy from abroad. Win-win-win.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by SebC

What I'm saying is that a compromise that "permanently" entrenches supply management is not an acceptable compromise. Majority rules means we don't need to compromise with a minority that is holding the public hostage if the will is there.

And I suspect there's a correlation between drunk driving and cab shortages... if that's the case, there are certainly people who have been harmed in ways far greater than whatever benefit the license-holders are deriving.

exactly... lobbying and cash donations to political parties should borderline be illegal, but never will be. One of our societies' greatest stumbling blocks to true progress in many areas.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by SebC

You're not wiping out $20 billion. You're returning it to consumers over time. Raise prices? We already pay way above market.

The thing about the dairy/poultry quotas is that to get the free trade agreements Harper wants, we will almost certainly have to get rid of the quota system.

I don't disagree with you but at the same time, I don't think there is a more powerful lobby group in the country than outraged farmers. To them, you are absolutely wiping out $20 billion. You are also endangering the milk supply and opening us up to reliance on foreign markets to provide our milk which is scary.

The bottom line though is that any party that proposes to eliminate the quota system will be attacked from every side and you will most likely have combines driving through all the cities shutting down traffic.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't disagree with you but at the same time, I don't think there is a more powerful lobby group in the country than outraged farmers. To them, you are absolutely wiping out $20 billion. You are also endangering the milk supply and opening us up to reliance on foreign markets to provide our milk which is scary.

The bottom line though is that any party that proposes to eliminate the quota system will be attacked from every side and you will most likely have combines driving through all the cities shutting down traffic.

All of that would probably be worth it to save Canadians the huge amount of money we're talking about here. But when the milk producers switch their ads from sunny with music to "Harper (or whoever) wants to hurt your babies!" and run it in full rotation, it'll become a polical nightmare. I don't see it happening.

Honestly, the thing that bothers me most about supply management is who it hurts, which is inevitably least advantaged. I drink milk, but I make a good income, so a bit extra for milk doesn't make any real difference to me. On the other hand, you have low income families where the fact that milk is CONSIDERABLY more expensive than pop actaully makes a difference. But we're protecting those poor (multi-million dollar quota owning) farmers, so that all evens out.

Summary:
Rich farmers: 1
Poor Children: 0