July 12, 2022

"Uber paid high-profile academics in Europe and the US hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce reports that could be used as part of the company’s lobbying campaign."

"The Uber files, a cache of thousands of confidential documents leaked to the Guardian, reveal lucrative deals with several leading academics who were paid to publish research on the benefits of its economic model.... Using techniques common in party political campaigns, Uber targeted academics and thinktanks to help it construct a positive narrative, namely that it created well-paid jobs that drivers liked, delivered cheap transport to consumers and boosted productivity.... Scholars were excited about Uber’s data because it gave them rare real-time evidence about the effect of prices on markets – one of the key issues among liberal economists arguing for free markets."

36 comments:

Dave Begley said...

The CAGW academics are also being paid off.

lgv said...

Paid research. Wow, what an evil concept. Glad it is illegal. Now, put them all in jail. What? Oh, really? This is very common? Nevermind.

Now if they are paid to lie, then it is different. But what they are publishing is actually accurate.



tim maguire said...

Given that this is The Guardian, I am assuming that Uber's efforts to defend their practices and show their value as a company is portrayed as sinister manipulation.

Heartless Aztec said...

A three minute conversation with any Uber driver will get you the guarded hedged truth. A 10 minute conversation with a $20 tip will get you the unvarnished truth. If the driver has had enough of Uber it'll be free truth and with extra added vitriol.

traditionalguy said...

It’s all for sale now. Perfect explanation for Global Warming crap. A paid for big lie pretending to be a Science.

Amadeus 48 said...

Haw-haw!

The Guardian needs to catch up on reading Edward Bernays (who was Sigmund Freud's nephew), particularly "Crystalizing Public Opinion", "Propaganda", and "Public Relations".

Imagine their horror when they read about Bernays's campaign to popularize smoking cigarettes among women. "Torches of freedom", indeed.

Sebastian said...

"it created well-paid jobs that drivers liked, delivered cheap transport to consumers and boosted productivity"

Outlandish!

By contrast, prog academics need no special grants to defend government policies that create no well-paid jobs that people like, that make transportation more expensive, and that hamper productivity.

FleetUSA said...

The old consultant initials - MAI

Made as Instructed

Enigma said...

Many (most?) academic scientists long ago sold their souls for (1) lifetime tenure, or (2) three years of grant money. They are fully owned by the establishment (government, university, business, or partisan activist groups) and will have no job or income if they don't produce findings the sponsors want to hear.

Cross out "Uber" and write in "United Nations" or "Apple" or "Greenpeace" or "Royal Dutch Shell" or...

Roger Sweeny said...

I look forward to future Guardian exposes of research paid for by the EPA that supports additional regulations by the EPA.

RideSpaceMountain said...

Studies! Government soyjaks love studies!!! Peer Reviewed!

MikeR said...

Good luck, guys. Everyone likes Uber, because they deliver a quality product for a reasonable price. Sorry if this is bad news.

Temujin said...

Well, at least they didn't pay them to go into labs in a foreign country to develop a virus that would kill millions, and shut down the entire world economy, set the US back on it's heels for years, alter the outcome of the US election, thereby putting China in a position to move toward world domination.

But then our media is on the Uber story with gusto! Journalism!

In the meantime, I'll read the Hunter Biden phone and laptop leaks for myself. If I happen to run into a Journalist! in a bar somewhere, I'll clue them in on the story. Not sure if they'll understand what I'm saying though.

Mike Sylwester said...

Journalist organizations -- The Guardian is just one example -- want a monopoly on publishing facts and opinions.

Academics who themselves publish facts and opinions are competing with journalist organizations.

Journalists organizations do not want there to be any alternative sources for facts and opinions.

That is why The Guardian is criticizing so angrily this business arrangement where a company pays academics to publish facts and opinions that The Guardian itself would not publish fairly.

gilbar said...

As traditionalguy said...
It’s all for sale now. Perfect explanation for Global Warming crap.

this IS the new scientific method
1) receive money from people that want you to say something
2) come up with "experiments" that will support what they want you to say
3) run those experiments.. If they FAIL (in supporting what they want; go back to step 2)
4) publish report saying what they want you to say

IF you can not make step 2 work.. replace step to with
2a) come up with computer "models" that will support what they want you to say

Gusty Winds said...

Wait. You can bribe university professors to conduct studies that support your desired pre-determined outcome??? No way!

I'll be the government never does that. Only Uber.

MayBee said...

...and?

Wince said...

Using techniques common in party political campaigns, Uber targeted academics and think tanks to help it construct a positive narrative...

Okay, now do Communist China and the Deep State.

Joe Smith said...

This is news?

This happens every single minute in the U.S. when it comes to politicians and lobbying groups working to scam the American people about some bill or another...

Rusty said...

Roger Sweeny said...
"I look forward to future Guardian exposes of research paid for by the EPA that supports additional regulations by the EPA."
You mean this isn't common knowledge?

Yancey Ward said...

Now do climate change.

Randomizer said...

Why did Uber even have to go to the trouble of bribing the intelligentsia? Uber's basic premise seems obvious. I have a car and some free time, you need a ride and have money. It takes a government to screw that up.

Yancey Ward said...

It is difficult, isn't it, to explain the Left's hate for Uber? All they are is a taxi service with unmarked cars. I have ridden in big city taxis- they are shitty and need to be competed into oblivion.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

IMHO, both U*er and L*ft take too big a cut from driver's earnings. While drivers incur all the costs and risks, for what? An app?

Drivers do all the heavy lyfting and they get most of the uber milk.

Not Sure said...

Like some other commenters, I'm not clear on what the "scandal" is.

Entry into the French taxi market was historically about the tightest anywhere, thanks to the political power of the taxi companies. That market was finally opened up somewhat to companies that booked riders in advance in 2009, with predecessors to Uber entering early and being harassed by regulations specifically aimed at raising their costs.

The big difference for a platform like Uber is the ease with which people can drive part-time on their own schedules. The most basic economics says that those people can't be made worse off by having the option to drive for Uber. Any driver who thinks he's not clearing enough income to make it worthwhile can always cut back to just driving at times of peak demand.

The fact that Uber finds it profitable to fund research that demonstrates that the French taxi market is governed by the forces of supply and demand is evidence of the persistent political clout of the old-line taxi companies. In unregulated markets firms don't need to fund studies demonstrating the obvious.

MrEdd said...

All you have to do to understand "experts" is try some lawsuits involving technical issues. I was a litigator for 40 years and i became distrustful of even my own experts. There are always experts on the other side of your own expert and they often come up with diametrically opposed opinions that can only be tested by an informed attorney cross examining them as to their methods and the foundation for their opinions. By the way, they are all paid. If you happen to represent a defendant who is a large corporation, as I did on many occasions, it is always portrayed by the opponent as the big bad corporation having bought the opinion. The fiction that somehow scientists, engineers, doctors, in fact, any so-called expert, has somehow avoided the whole human nature thing is just the posturing of the side who the opinion supports. I have had cases where two of my own experts have very different opinions on an issue and, of course, in zealously advocating for my client within the bounds of the law, I chose to believe the one who supported my client's position and put that expert on the stand. But, I always am skeptical of experts. They all get something of value for their opinion, if not money, then fame or even simply continued acceptance by their colleagues, bosses or social class. My personal doctor doesn't like me much because I can't help cross-examining him on his advise. On big things I get a second opinion. I never know if I've annoyed him so much he'd rather have me die.

Narr said...

"liberal economists arguing for free markets" is interesting phraseology on the paper's part.

But I have to wonder at the uproar, except as a convenient distraction from more important leak stories. (Never Ubered or Lyfted myself, active or passive, so have no personal investment either way.)

Dude1394 said...

And this is different from pharmaceutical companies how?

Michael K said...

My personal doctor doesn't like me much because I can't help cross-examining him on his advise. On big things I get a second opinion. I never know if I've annoyed him so much he'd rather have me die.

My internist is an obvious Democrat. Obsessed by Covid. Worries about his 9 year old kid getting it. He and I have agreed to disagree on a lot. He is still a good internist if a bit anal.

PM said...

Not much satisfaction for the cabbie who bought a $100,000+ medallion only to see it 'disrupted'.

Michael K said...


Blogger Yancey Ward said...

Now do climate change.


97% of scientists agree with whoever is paying for their research.

Tina Trent said...

Maybe they can do a survey question about how many academics know the price of milk.

Or a heart stent for all those unfortunate self-employed people who now pay 4 times as much for healthcare insurance nobody will take.

Then follow up to see if they can divide their salaries and wall to wall benefits by 12 so they stop whining that they made some fantasy sacrifice by going into teaching even with four months off.

Every penny they make on the expert witness take should be deducted from their taxpayer-subsidized salaries, labs use expenses, etc. Faculty are paid for 12 months of work; their benefits are structured for 12 months. Sure, fewer of them will bother being expert witnesses -- a laughable conceit in law, business, and the Humanities, at least. In France, good research scientists set up their own private labs and compete with each other while training the next generation of scientists. They're businessmen and their acolytes are paid by skill and productivity, not some blowhard administrators also bankrolled by us.

James K said...

So what? The research can stand or fall in the merits. Those who disagree with it can fund their own research and fight it out in the marketplace of ideas.

bobby said...

I still get a huge kick out of how Uber was able to co-opt and ignore a hundred years of labor-law development, with the complete backing and enthusiastic support of the same progressive community that instituted those laws. Mostly because they did it with phones and apps and it was cool.

Man, these people are dumb.

Biff said...

Surely I missed the paragraph describing how much was spent by labor unions, taxi cartels, minimum wage activists, and others to fund studies demonstrating the evil wrought by Uber on worker's paradises around the globe.

boatbuilder said...

So Uber paid "academics" who know a lot about economics to conduct research to validate their business madel and used it to promote their product. As opposed to paying advertising people who know nothing about the subject to make their product sound good.

I don't see a huge problem here.