Originally Posted by
tandempower
Being 'anti-competitive' is a form of competition, but it's a dirty form. It means you get involved in your competitors' business to thwart their ability to compete with you. It's like a form of market sabotage. I.e. if there are real companies trying to provide non-automotive mobility solutions and then car companies get involved pretending to also be offering such solutions, but their real motive is to steer people toward buying cars by providing inadequate alternatives or causing problems for companies and regulators who are trying to improve access to alternative transportation, that is anti-competitive.
They can set their prices as high as they want, but they shouldn't interfere with others competing with them by undercutting their prices.
Obviously that's not the case if there are new forms of mobility being developed and deployed and local governments and others are interfering with those emerging markets.
When a local government charges a $500 annual fee per scooter for share companies to have the scooter available on the street, why aren't they charging the same fee for rental cars? Because those aren't dockless? Well then why can't share companies rent small docks to stack share bikes/scooters instead of paying $500 per unit? $500 per year is a high tax to pay to have a share scooter available.
When you deny it, it just puts you on their side, which you don't actually need to deny anyway because it's obvious.
I don’t think making up your own definition of how things work constitutes any kind of proof. Now if you could show a codified set of rules of how a successful company must deal with a non related startup company you could prove GM or any auto company has broken the rules and that caused elected officials, elected by you and your neighbors, to inact specific regulations that they have never applied to any other company you would have the beginnings of a conspiracy claim against the city, county, or state.
Still tgere is no legal requirement that a car company has to assist other transportation startups to become successful. You will not even find that concept in a book on ethics.
Perhaps if the concerns you have expressed about how scooters and bikes “could” be better managed and so less obtrusive to the people that object to them were sent to the scooter and bike companies they could evaluate their plans and approach the cities effected.
It it might be helpful if you had a basic knowledge of how corporations work and the fees and taxes they paid before you assume they aren’t paying way more than $500.00 a unit. Not to mention what the customer is required to pay.
But I know that would take looking at both sides of the issue and that requires objectivity rather than advocacy.