Yes but what is the economic argument for doing so? Does this make Italians better off? How does it affect the cost of living? Why not double the limit? Why not half it? Should people even be employed to do this? What about when self-driving cars can operate as taxis?
Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers?
My point is to ask what research and thought has gone into this policy. Somebody mentioned that it was "a democratic decision" when I highly doubt anybody voted on this issue, let alone discussed it with the public. It seems at first glance to be mindless bureaucracy, but I can't say for certain.
"Why not do the same thing to fast food workers? Why not commercial truck drivers?"
I suppose that they do it for those too through collective agreements (it seems that there is not minimum wage in Italy). That would not make sense for taxi drivers that are basically small business, so they have to limit the supply.
Are Italians better off?
No idea. It depends on your ideology. We should define better off first, and we would never arrive to an agreement there. The thing is that this is the way they decide to organize using their institutions.
My perception is that the Italian society feel that they should have a minimum wage. In other words, that market forces shouldn't be allowed to push the wages below a minimum. As taxis operate as little business and not as standard employees, they can't control that minimum directly, so they control the supply.
Is that the right decision? I have no idea, but, I defend their right to go with it.
But taxis aren't controlling the supply, the government is. Has the government done any analysis into their decision here? How do they know that wages won't rise as a result of cheaper and more frequent trips, for example? What if people who left the taxi industry went on to more productive things? Will the government also ban self-driving vehicles?
Nobody is questioning whether an elected official or government bureaucracy has the "right" to make the decision, it's clear they do. What is being questioned directly is the morality of the decision and whether this is a good decision.
It would be great if you stopped this "I defend their right to do this" commentary because it's not relevant to the conversation and distracts from what we're actually talking about.
How do they arrive to the current number of licenses? Sorry, beyond my knowledge. What are they going to do in the future? The same.
When "I defend their right to do this", I don't mean only in a legal sense, but in a moral one, which, in your own words, is being questioned here.
I think that they have a moral right because they are the expression of aggregate preferences of the Italian society through their democratic institutions. I realize that, probably, you don't share this view.
Is this a good decision? Well, you have to define good first. Good for who? We should assume is good enough for Italians that allow it. As I said before, they are expressing their aggregate preferences.
But I'm not questioning their right to do this, I'm questioning the action itself. These are separate. I'm sorry if I've given you the impression then that I was questioning the right in the Italian democratic society to take this action.
I take issue with the action itself, because I question the motives and the reasoning behind it, in that, it's likely just political and no forethought has gone into the consequences.
Assuming an action is good because it is allowed is a poor assumption.
No they don't. Eastern European drivers drive for the fraction of a cost than western european drivers do because they have less cost where they come from.
So all this shows is exactly the political nature of the judges uber ruling. It's all politics and claiming it's somehow justified as you did originally is simply not the case.
No i am aware of that which is why you keep going back to it being a democratic institution. But thats not whats at question here. You tried to argue that the judges ruling was justified By isolating it to a legality thing, but then a lot of other companies should be shut down in itally. Foreign truckdriver companies from eastern europe, automated cars etc all on the basis that they are based on unfair competition. Its a politically motivated ruling too.
This has nothing to do with laissez faire ideology and you are actually the one showing your ideological stance here.
Uber disrupts because it turns something which used to be a relatively high paying job into one that isn't because it doesn't need to be.
Uber subsdizing by taking on debt isn't unfair competition anymore than a supermarket who decided to sell something at a discount because it want to attract customers and I am pretty sure the appeal will allow Uber to operate again.
It's a price control measure. They decided that the people doing this job should be able to make a living doing it.
Of course, this goes against laissez faire ideology, but, it's their prerogative to choose that.