and Law == Good
always

most of the DC population is lower class, undereducated citizens that vote based on irrational perceptions and have probably never heard of most of the political issues that make news in the city throughout the year. that’s how a mayor who was once a civil rights leader can ride that accomplishment to getting caught snorting coke off a hooker’s *ss and still manage to get reelected. and a place where a city councilman can get away with saying:

?We?ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go, I?ll just say that right now, you know. But we need African-American businesspeople to be able to take their places, too.?

the problem is exacerbated by the fact that DC is a very transient city. a lot of the educated people living here either weren’t around during the last local election cycle, won’t be around for the next, or never even register to vote in the city (e.g. military, students, etc). solution: none. this city is perpetually f’ed.

Every legacy industry works like this in every city in every “capitalist” (and many not so capitalist) economy.

It’s hard to understand from a theoretical perspective, but practically, it is the adaptation that has made capitalism stable enough to stave off the communist (r)evolution.

Free-market, classic capitalism by its very nature is too unstable to support large-scale, long-lasting civilizations – there’s way too much churn, boom and bust, creative destruction, winners and losers if you will. How do you build a stable political system to serve, say, 100 million people on something like that? You don’t.

The adaptation is various forms of anti-competitive policies, outright corruption, bailouts, industry subsidies, militarism, dictatorship, police state, etc. Those things keep the system stable enough to last longer than the next boom/bust cycle.

Plainly-spoken, it’s why Marx’s predictions were wrong and why communism-proper has never been successful. Instead, we have variations of cabal/corporatist/monarchist-capitalist political economies which are different only in their historical details.

No one on the East coast drives cars.

Remember when Conan O’Brien moved from New York out to California? The first thing he said was “everyone here has cars, I’m shocked! No one in New York drives!”

“which they always position as being for the protection of customers, but in reality are always about limiting the market and keeping competition out.”

That statement alone shows that you are rather clueless on the whole situation.

The ideals are to protect the citizens, even if the methods used appear a bit weird to you. One of the ways they protect the citizens is to limit the number of cars which can be taxis. Your immediate reaction is that it is a move to “block competition”. It’s not really a true statement, since the rates a taxi charges are pre-set, there isn’t any price point competition that would benefit the public. 1 taxi or 1 million taxis, the rates are set and would be the same.

You may say “if there are more taxis, people wouldn’t have to wait for one”. While this is true, it would also lead to less occupied “paid” time for each drive. That in turn would lead to a push for higher rates (because they are making less paid miles per hour), leading the public to pay more.

So why not abolish the taxi boards that set rates, and allow for a free market? Well, that would be nice, but generally the free market doesn’t work in these areas. Rates would vary greatly, making it even easier to stiff tourists and little old ladies. Moreover, a race to the bottom on might lead drivers to skimp on car maintenance, you know, those brakes can hold on one more week, and that CO2 leak into the car isn’t that important to handle.

Longer term, it would likely drive people out of the taxi business, making the cars more scarce, more expensive, and likely only available at peak times, when the drivers can make money. Good luck getting that late night taxi home from the bar, the drivers don’t want to work that shift, and the companies don’t want to risk the cars.

Are there companies or groups that use the rules to their advantage to create monopolies or to profit from the situations? Yup, there sure are. There are crooked people in almost every business. However, the alternatives to the current situation isn’t an open and free market, that would only serve those who could afford, and only at the best times. Is that what you really want?