Juno News - November 28, 2020


The Ford government interferes in the free market

Topics
Mentioned
Standing up for the right to own a business Enforcing nonsensical coronavirus rules

Episode Stats


Length

4 minutes

Words per minute

226.65

Word count

1,113

Sentence count

56


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Ontario wants to cap delivery app fees in areas of the province where indoor dining is bad. I talk about the pros and cons of this new policy, and what it could mean for delivery apps like DoorDash and Uber Eats.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Topics generated with Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct.
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00.000 So there's a story out this week that Ontario is going to move to cap delivery app fees in
00:00:09.260 regions where indoor dining is bad. Now these delivery apps we're talking about are things
00:00:12.920 like Uber Eats or DoorDash. They basically offer you delivery for a restaurant or a place of
00:00:17.900 business that normally doesn't have delivery. So you can get them from Tim Hortons, McDonald's,
00:00:21.620 or any small restaurant that isn't normally doing delivery. So what is the goal here? Well,
00:00:26.680 the goal of this policy seems to be to prevent people from getting price gouged. Apparently some
00:00:31.320 people were being charged about 30%. Now I myself tried to order a, I think it was a potato wedges
00:00:36.980 from Tim Hortons through one of the companies and I'll post up that picture, but the associated
00:00:42.220 fees made it come out to like $12. So it's clearly a lot more than 30% on just some small order and
00:00:47.800 let's just say I really just felt like some fries or potato wedges and so I have to pay about $12
00:00:51.960 for that if I don't want anything else. Now there are a couple of problems with this policy and
00:00:57.640 number one, as a conservative, it's not really something they should be doing in getting involved
00:01:03.060 in a free market transaction between two consenting parties. To me as the consenting party, I really,
00:01:08.380 really would like potato wedges right now and they are more than happy and willing to deliver me some
00:01:13.220 potato wedges. The only thing is they're going to charge me about $10 of fees. So, I mean, if that's
00:01:18.980 what we are interested in, I don't really see why the government should use force, which government
00:01:23.980 is, government is basically force. I don't see why the government should use force to stop us from
00:01:28.480 conducting that transaction freely. So that is problem number one. But the larger problem is not
00:01:34.500 necessarily the government stopping people from having free choices, which again, this is what
00:01:38.380 they're doing in essence. But the larger problem is the direction that the policy is going to go and
00:01:44.280 what they actually want it to do. Now, what they wanted to do is to stop people from getting price
00:01:49.620 gouged. They feel that a lot of people are maybe not going to restaurants. They're not supporting
00:01:54.160 their local businesses or they're simply not eating out as much. And again, obviously it's, you know,
00:01:58.120 there's a pandemic going on. People are maybe banned from eating indoors or simply trying to save money.
00:02:03.020 They're afraid of getting coronavirus, et cetera. So restaurants are definitely suffering at this
00:02:07.140 time. And the goal is to maybe prevent people from getting price gouged and also help these
00:02:12.420 restaurants to get some increased business from the otherwise, from the people who otherwise would
00:02:16.840 not frequent or frequent or shop there. Now, this is, I think, one of the policy goals. The problem is
00:02:22.760 that what can happen is that the people who are using DoorDash or Uber Eats or any one of those
00:02:28.160 companies right now, and they're like me, they're like that example where I just wanted some potato
00:02:31.840 wedges. Maybe they just want a coffee and a donut, something small. If you're going to cap those fees and
00:02:35.960 you're going to make it that it is now illegal to charge more than 20%, if we're talking about a small order
00:02:40.600 at Tim's that's five or $6 and they can only charge me 20%, you know, what are we really looking at
00:02:46.760 here? Like a buck, you know, two bucks on a really small order that might not make it worth it for
00:02:51.840 these companies to deliver. And so what can happen is that these companies will simply decide, well,
00:02:56.100 we're not going to do that. Or maybe they're going to try and find some sort of loophole in the
00:03:00.020 legislation and say, we're not charging you a service fee. We're charging you a mandatory tip for
00:03:04.100 the driver of X amount or some other kind of loophole where the company is still going to get that
00:03:09.140 money, but they are now going to call it something else. So that is one possibility. But the other
00:03:14.120 possibility is like I alluded to just a second ago, that they're just not going to do it. They're
00:03:18.360 going to stop offering service to these places. And what's going to happen is that the consumer or
00:03:22.960 the person who wanted to eat for the, from that place and was more than happy to pay the fee. I mean,
00:03:27.200 well, maybe they weren't happy about it, but they were willing to pay that fee. Maybe now Uber Eats or,
00:03:32.400 you know, DoorDash or one of those companies, they're just going to stop offering service to that
00:03:35.820 restaurant because they can no longer meet their profit margin that they require to stay in business.
00:03:40.420 Now, again, I'm not a shareholder in any of these companies. I'm not privy to what goes on. I'm not
00:03:44.460 a driver for any of these companies. So I have no idea what margins they make, how much profit they
00:03:48.600 make, how much they share with the driver. But again, these are all in a free market. These are all
00:03:52.680 transactions made by consenting people. And so you have to assume that they're not being coerced and
00:03:57.300 they're more than happy to engage in this type of business. So by the government coming in and
00:04:01.960 capping, so they're basically putting a price control, but the government putting a price
00:04:05.340 control, they are now not only limiting people's options, but they may cause incentives or disincentives
00:04:11.000 for the company to continue operating the way that they were previously. So this is often what
00:04:15.500 happens when the government tries to step in and, you know, right a wrong as they see it. And all they
00:04:20.640 end up doing is just limiting options. And it's a bit interesting or, you know, maybe even disappointing
00:04:25.140 that a conservative government is doing it because again, this is not in line with any of the free
00:04:31.640 market principles that you might expect from such a government. So again, you know, very interesting
00:04:36.260 stuff. And I really hope that policymakers think about what it is that they want to achieve. And
00:04:40.640 maybe that a policy like this is not the best way to achieve that, because again, there are many
00:04:44.900 loopholes as we just discussed, but you know, who knows, I'm just a commentator who knows if they
00:04:49.520 will listen or not. So for TrueNorth, I'm Sam Ashkenazi. Thank you so, so much for watching.
00:04:53.940 Have yourselves a great day.