Regulate This! (Ep. 177)

Airbnb graffiti in the New York subway.
A battle is being waged between the Internet and the State, and this episode of Freakonomics Radio gives you front-row seats. It’s called “Regulate This!” (You can subscribe to the podcast at iTunes, get the RSS feed, or listen via the media player above. You can also read the transcript; it includes credits for the music you’ll hear in the episode.)
At issue is the so-called sharing economy, a range of services that facilitate peer-to-peer transactions through the Internet. Companies like Airbnb, Uber, and Lyft have seen rapid growth and eye-popping valuations, but as they expand around the world, they are increasingly butting heads with government regulators.
In this episode, you’ll hear from Nathan Blecharczyk, the co-founder and CTO of Airbnb (now valued at roughly $10 billion), and one of the youngest billionaires in the world. Blecharczyk tells Stephen Dubner the story of Airbnb’s founding, how it initially struggled to find investors, and what kind of obstacles it still faces daily. In New York City, for instance, it’s estimated that about two-thirds of its business activity is illegal. That’s a big concern for New York State Senator Liz Krueger, known as “Airbnb’s doubter-in-chief.”
In 2010, Krueger was the chief sponsor of legislation that came to be known as the Illegal Hotel Law, which has made it harder for New Yorkers to legally rent out their rooms through Airbnb. Blecharczyk argues that it’s time for lawmakers like Krueger to recognize the reality of Airbnb, which he estimates will bring in $768 million worth of annual economic activity in New York:
BLECHARCZYK: We’re not advocating that there shouldn’t be rules. We’re just saying that things have evolved and it’s worth taking a fresh look from the ground up.
Krueger, meanwhile, argues that current laws aren’t strict enough:
KRUEGER: I want to look at more enforcement, perhaps increase fines, and penalties. I do have a very serious frustration that the kind of law that we really need needs to be federal because the state is superseded by federal law when it comes to regulating online business. Some people seem to think that if you’re a business model that’s on the internet it’s like magic and hocus pocus. It’s just business. And there’s a reason for government to regulate business, whether it has a physical site somewhere or whether it’s in the cloud.
Inspired by Airbnb, the entrepreneur Guy Michlin co-founded EatWith, which enables cooks to convert their homes into restaurants. EatWith has yet to clash with regulators, but he’s bracing for the inevitable:
MICHLIN: I think that sometimes, or actually many times, the regulator is a little bit behind to catch up with technology… And if you think about Airbnb, it’s obvious that this is a phenomenon that’s not going to go away…. Obviously the regulator will need to come in and hopefully in a dialog with all the different constituencies, adapt and create a new regulation that fits the reality.
The ride-sharing company Lyft, meanwhile, has engaged in high-profile showdowns with state regulators around the country. John Zimmer, its co-founder and president, explains:
ZIMMER: They interpret laws one way and are trying to do their job. And we interpret laws another way and are trying to innovate. And those two things are at odds, and the timelines are at odds. And if we took the approach of, “Hey, let’s wait and see what the government does to create a path that is very, very clear … then we wouldn’t be operating anywhere.
Lyft recently got into a head-on collision with New York State regulators, including the office of Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (which has also clashed with Airbnb). Schneiderman’s chief of staff Micah Lasher tweeted that Lyft and Zimmer were “not just ‘disruptive’ but also personally dishonest.”
It might be easy to conclude that state regulators are clamping down on these companies in large part to protect the entrenched hotel and taxi industries. Lasher says this isn’t the case, that the A.G.’s office isn’t against innovation or competition, but is instead just looking out for the public:
LASHER: One of the big issues is the question of externalities and external impacts. In other words, if my next-door neighbor is using their apartment as a hotel room, they’re not just running a risk of their apartment getting trashed, they’re having an impact on me. Similarly, in the case of Lyft, if one of those drivers gets into a car accident, doesn’t have appropriate insurance, that can have an impact on a whole bunch of folks who did not sign up for that.
Throughout the episode you’ll hear from award-winning Stanford economist Jonathan Levin, who specializes in Internet marketplaces. Levin tells us a story about a brilliant business idea he had as a kid — and how mobile Internet beat him to the punch.

Christopher G. Barsa
"Let him who would move the world move himself"
"The secret of happiness you see, is not found in seeking more, but in developing the capacity to enjoy less"
"Contentment is natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty"
The oracle has spoken please listen up. SOCRATES...
Michael
I wonder if the same technology that allows the creation of these new markets also obviates the need for some regulatory roles. Regulations are really just there to ensure companies meet a baseline set of criteria because that information can be difficult for each consumer to gather and understand. Some of these criteria, though, could just as easily be managed by an online profile as long as we can reasonably expect that profile to be accurate and fully representative. An Eat With proprietor who serves up food poisoning is quickly going to lose patrons as their profile and rankings suffer. An Uber or Lyft driver who drives erratically will suffer the same fate (something current taxi regulations don't even catch!). The same quick and seamless access to knowledge that enables these new market-making apps also enables, to some extent, a self-regulated market. Certainly there are regulatory criteria not captured in the profile such as the externalities discussed in the podcast and in the comments or insurance minimums or other such things. Still, the role and scope of regulation in these industries needs to be reconsidered from the ground up in light of these new technologies.
Scott Ruffner
It's a nice idea, but it's really no different from Lazziez-Faire Caveat Emptor. The problem with completely unregulated "free" markets is that while you do arrive at a self-corrected market equilibrium, the "noise" around the curve/line that delineates the equilibrium is pretty severe - in engineering, it's what we call a "bang-bang" control: you have only two options, full on, full stop.
If you're driving your car down the highway and trying to average a speed of 55MPH by alternately slamming on the brakes and stomping on the gas, then you're in for a really really unpleasant ride. Bouncing consumers and other market participants around in a market like that - the multiple boom bust cycles born out of banking crises that afflicted the US for most of the 19th century are the most dramatic (and completely forgotten) examples of this - causes a huge amount of economic damage and is ultimately, in and of itself, grossly inefficient - your gas mileage is better by making small, gentle, incremental adjustments to your gas pedal.
So much for the macro...let's talk about the technology in the micro:
- If you have to wait until a few people get sick - and still permit time for the word to spread via digital reputation feedback - to put an Eat With provider on notice to change their ways, you're still going to be waiting a lot longer and enduring the lost productivity of many more sick people. BTW, we've had this for some time now: how many people has Yelp put out of business? How effective is 'reputation', regardless of the delivery mechanism? Sure, TripAdvisor and Yelp are much faster at disseminating information, but
- How many people have to endure price gouging from Uber before people stop using their service? Yes, economists drool over the notion of perfectly efficient markets delivering perfectly efficient services via "dynamic pricing" but if you are in a snowstorm, and can't get a cab because you cannot afford the $150 fare to get twenty blocks uptown, how is that really any different to you as a consumer than not being able to get a cab because of artificially limited numbers of medallion? In fact, dynamic pricing doesn't actually induce an instant response in the number of cabs - again bang-bang theory and volatile swings - available during the price (demand) surge. What it does allow is gouging. This is because there are real world structural limits to increasing the supply so rapidly. Smartphones and Apps don't change that; it takes more than just owning a smartphone and installing an app to suddenly become an Uber driver.
- AirBnB "reputation" issues: how does "reputation" of hosts in any way address externalities they shove off on the people around them? The whole point of externalities is that you've successfully pushed costs off onto someone who isn't a participant in the transaction. Are you suggesting that AirBnB will permit angry neighbors of "hosts" to post negative comments about having an AirBnB host living in the apartment next door? If you're serious, I have another bridge to sell in Manhattan...you'll make a killing on just a tiny toll.
Cory
"how is that really any different to you as a consumer than not being able to get a cab because of artificially limited numbers of medallion?"
There's a huge difference: options. In a snowstorm would you not prefer to have the option of paying $150--or more-- for a cab instead of just nothing at all? You underestimate the power of options. But perhaps you prefer less options in a market, where, at least in this case, the choice is already made for a consumer choosing between walking home or paying for an expensive taxi. And dont ignore the benefits of surge pricing, there are indeed times when Uber is cheaper than a cab.
I think you also underestimate the power of incentive and peoples' response to them. The bang-bang approach is a bit misguided, since you're assuming snowstorms occur without any prior knowledge, and that Uber drivers cant/wont, say, check the weather forecast, or even take a peak out the window. Even if there is a delay, say a snow storm does occur and no one knows beforehand, do you think the response will lag so much to justify a bangbang model? Perhaps if the barriers to entry for becoming an Uber driver are >1 day, and the supply of Uber drivers + taxis is less than the demand, then you have a point. But I think thats something more variable than constant, ie it could happen if the stars align, but its not given.
dustin
Strange that almost every regulator interviewed seems people as these destructive monsters that want to spread plague and disease. The innovators see people as gentle and honest. I find the disparity interesting.
Will S
Everything Liz Krueger said was so cringe worthy. Makes me soo glad I don't in NYC. What makes someone feel such a strong belief in the need to regulate everything? I love how Dubner brought up something she never heard of before and she tried to come up reason it needs to be regulated and really had nothing logical to say . It really showed how she has only has one way of interpreting issues. Great job of interviewing everyone Dubner. Also thanks for tweeting me during the ibooks QnA!
Tyler Szabo
I find it somewhat disingenuous for the legislators say they must regulate by banning.
I like the regulations discussed on Uber; but the regulations discussed on Lyft was myopic. If the concern is insurance then make an insurance requirement and let Lyft deal with meeting it. Same with Airbnb, if they are concerned about neighbors and crime, make the renter more liable or require insurance. Banning is such a heavy hammer and clearly everything looks like a nail.
NZ
The problem is, there negative consequences that are not so extreme that they are crimes or insurance hazards, but bad enough that they significantly lower the quality of life for innocent bystanders.
In this sense, these social networking services are like slovenly, annoying, classless neighbors who stop short of breaking the law. The only way to keep them from destroying your neighborhood is to not let them move in in the first place.
Alex
Krueger, just like a typical politician, latches on to the same far-fetched argument and keeps repeating it in hopes it becomes more true.