If the U.S. experience is of any use to us, it’s to demonstrate that denying the negative impact of ride-hailing companies means falling into the trap of technological optimism, but banning them without taking advantage of the opportunities they offer would be to limit ourselves to what we already have, for fear of having a better future.
Uber is innovating, but that doesn’t mean it can do so in its current form. The American company intends to replace traditional taxis, notably by offering everyone the opportunity to drive as a way to supplement their pay. By doing so, it has gotten into trouble with Belgian law. It is now clear that the company can no longer legally continue to offer its services without changing Brussels taxi regulations. Is this kind of change desirable? One argument has been consistently made against this background: Uber is innovating, and obstructing this innovation would be unacceptable.
What role did the Obama administration play in the U.S. economy’s triumphant return — the very same economy that almost destroyed global financial systems just five years ago?