Taxi Driver Online

Yes things are getting better, some have left the trade and some have bought new cars 23 59 reg plates now, all be it them lemons that Chrysler are selling for under 10K, as they have found that buying ones that they can only run for 3 years uneconomical
So quite a modern fleet now

Chrysler dont sell WAV's do they? Are you saying your council doesnt have quality control with WAV's?

CC

The definition of a fair price is a price a customer is prepared to pay in exchange for good or services.

That whole reading comprehension thing seems to really be an issue for you. I said I didn't think the lottery system was a fair way of doing it.

Nice planet you live on. Do you ever visit Earth?

Dismissing someone who you disagree with as "having the logic of a brick" shows you for what you are.

How?

I don't believe 'fair price' has a definition as recognised by economists, unless you can quote an authority for your statement.

Goods and services are valued based upon what a ready, able and willing buyer is prepared to pay. These valuations use market evidence of recent transactions to approximate the thoughts of the 'R.A.W.' buyer. This is the most reliable method. If such evidence is not available, other methods relating to investment returns or 'cost +' are used but are notoriously unreliable when challenged in court.

The concept of a 'fair price' is, in my view, one of a democratic socialist ideal which can only be created politically without full regard to market conditions.

In the example under discussion, David paid £35,000 because he was a)ready, ie it coincided with his plans, b) able, ie finance terms acceptable to the seller were in place; and c) willing, he wanted to buy the plate. Under no circumstances that I can conceive at present would I have been willing to buy the plate so, willing and able are irrelevent. Fairness is a subjective term that will vary with each individual.

Will Wikipedia do you? Or would you prefer something more specialist?

"...Fair value, also called fair price (in a commonplace conflation of the two distinct concepts), is a concept used in finance and economics, defined as a rational and unbiased estimate of the potential market price of a good, service, or asset..."



So, what you're rather long-windedly trying to say is that you don't think it's a fair price and that you wouldn't pay for it. That's fair enough. If someone IS prepared to pay for something then, by definition, that person considers that price to be fair. It's like any market; supply, demand and available liquidity / credit define the limits of that market's activity. Those same things also define the limits of pricing you're likely to find within the market.

After reading your post several times I'm struggling to find you saying anything or trying to make a point beyond stating you wouldn't pay that much for a licence. Everything else reads like a copy-and-paste or telling me stuff I already know.

Here's hoping it wasn't trading standards that you worked for at the council!



Well of course it is if you want to have a proper discussion. For a start, you've moved onto a different concept of fairness. Initially, my point was about profiteering, exploitation or whatever you want to call it, but in essence related to fairness.

But now you've moved on to 'fair value', and you quote from Wikipedia in support of this, but fair value employs a different concept of fair altogether - for our purposes it basically means a reasonable value for use in accounting or economic analysis, and has nothing to do with fairness as in equity.

For example, you could say that the fair value of a banker's salary and bonus is what's agreed between him and the company's board, but that doesn't necessarily equate to what people think is equitable, particularly if his actions have brought the bank to its knees.

Thus in essence when you say the fair price for a plate is that agreed between the buyer and seller then that has nothing to do with the fairness of transaction in the wider sense, which is a more subjective thing. For our purposes fair price basically means 'market value'.

Of course, you might dismiss this as mere semantics, but as far as I can see it goes to the heart of the argument.

Likewise, at the outset you said that a council's function was one thing, but when I pointed to a possible hole in your stance you added another function, and then accused me of arguing about mere semantics, whereas it was really about the fact that you fundamentally changed your stance. Thus not semantics at all, but of course it's a common diversionary/blame shifting tactic employed when no substantive argument can be offered




But when I outlined a hypothetical scenario based on the Southampton lottery you responded:

No one gets shafted. Instead business gets done.

What goods or service are being sold?

_________________
IDFIMH

A long time ago, the then chairman of the Taxi Association in Brum decided to run an article in the monthly newsletter about nick-names on the rank.

He did not equate the nicknames to real names; he just published a list of nick-names.

One of those nick-names was 'Donkey Brain'. We also had a nick-name of 'Donkey Brain 2'

A few days after the newsletter was sent out, the chap who was known on the rank by the nick-name 'Donkey Brain' came into the office & vigorously remonstrated with the chairman that he should not have published his nick-name.

Some of the committee men had to go into the back office for laughter, because the idiot known as 'Donkey Brain' had admitted that his nickname was 'Donkey Brain' although his name was not published alongside his nick-name.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Again, lots more commentary but no real point. Something goes to the heart of the argument but you can't seem to get over what your argument is.

You are being semantic and you're jumping around all over the place. I'll recap my points just so you understand. Of course if you forget to read them or don't comprehend properly that's not something I can fix:

1. The Council have no business worrying about what a plate is worth after they issue it. They might well be the ones who created the market because they limit taxi numbers but limiting taxi numbers is a sensible strategy. Their function is to issue the licences, assure adherence to the licenced terms and maintain the link between licence numbers and demand.

2. If someone gets a plate and they wish to sell it on if someone buys it then between buyer and seller a fair price has been established. What you consider to be a fair price or what you would pay is immaterial because, in this scenario, you're neither a buyer nor a seller.

3. I think the lottery system of issuing the plates is profoundly unfair. This gives a late-entrant chancer the same opportunity as someone who has expressed an interest early on in owning a newly issued plate. Perhaps a fairer way to do it would be to maintain a Council-approved waiting list and insist that those at the top of said list are offered first-refusal on any plates being transferred.

There, is that clear enough for you?

The plate.

Who owns the plate, and what service does it offer?

_________________
IDFIMH

I detect more semantics on the way but I'll bite.

The plate is the 'product' being exchanged.

'Ownership' of the plate allows the 'owner' to do business. The plate in and of itself doesn't offer anything except the right to conduct businesses within the licenced area. It's the scarcity of the plates and the forecasted amount of business which contributes to its' perceived value.

I guess that this is where the problem lies. The "owner" of the plate is still the council.
So in effect these plates are being sold by people who do not own them in the first place.

_________________
Grandad,