[keenmaster]

The nice thing about capitalism is that it doesn’t care what a company wants (in a properly functioning non-monopolistic market. I’d say that the international market for automobiles is more functional than not, despite some degree of subsidisation and tariffs). I’m sure Ford wishes it could charge you $100k for a Ford Explorer but it can’t because it’s not part of an oligopolistic centralized pricing mafia.

If self-driving tech becomes cheap enough, and there’s enough demand for it, then competitive pressures will ensure that people can own self-driving cars. That being said, the same competitive forces can make using a fleet much cheaper than owning a car, and you might want a subscription to the Mercedes fleet rather than owning an autonomous mid-tier car if those things are equivalently priced and you live in a fleet-dense area.

[isx726552]

Sadly collusion among market leaders is rampant even though there are (poorly enforced) laws against it, so it’s not too far fetched for companies to all lock arms and say they won’t do something. It’s all too easy to get away with that, especially when there are high barriers to entry (as with cars).

[mitthrowaway2]

Capitalism isn't so friendly to people who find themselves in a shrinking market segment.

If competitive forces do make using a fleet much cheaper than owning a car, then individually-owned cars lose the economies of scale that keep them affordable for the middle class. The costs of supporting and distributing to private owners go way up; the risk of liabilities from private owners making unlicensed modifications to their vehicles becomes a heavy burden, and eventually privately-owned cars becomes a luxury market only available to the very top. They become impractical even for the people who own them, as homes and destinations gradually stop being built with parking lots and garages, as most vehicles drive off after dropping off their riders.

Changes in the equilibrium can really shift things, and when a replacement comes into the market, it can also make things expensive that used to be cheap. For example, public payphones used to be ubiquitous; now they're rare and expensive to maintain relative to the income they bring in, and their rarity has made the remaining ones become targets for vandalism. The segment of people who would use them has shrank, and the supply of parts has decreased too, and that means that it becomes unaffordable to provide them at all.

Now even if you prefer payphones, and even if your phone company would gladly provide them for you for the right price, you can no longer find a price point that makes that deal work out, merely because of the shift in preferences of a sufficient quantity of third-party individuals.