Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's not a crime if we do it with an app

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 640 posts

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#571

Post by cudgy »

sega_sai wrote: post #28
djoldman wrote: post #16

It appears that the crux of the article is that a lot of price fixing is going on through the use of programs that suggest or encourage pricing among a few players, to the advantage of all the players and the disadvantage of the customer. Crackdowns do take time in the US but there is hope. See e.g.: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-realp...

There is zero chance that this kind of Justice department actions will be continued in the current administration

Actually, there’s still a chance the current administration can do something about it. But there’s a zero chance the previous administration did anything about it.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#572

Post by cudgy »

dralley wrote: post #529
cpill wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New Deal, which Bernie was resurrecting, was meant to break monopolies up, to promote completion and make price fixing impossible. the democrats voted against that as they are controlled by the big companies too. this is easy MAGA exists, and won.

Lina Khan led the most antitrust-focused DoJ in a century, which went after Apple, Google, Nvidia, Realpage, airlines, and dozens of other companies. MAGA give zero fucks about antitrust, and antitrust or lack thereof has nothing to do with the creation of MAGA. That's such an absurd argument I have no idea how to even respond to it. The cornerstone of MAGA has always been nativism & reactionary politics. I'm very, v…

What did Lena Kahn actually accomplish though? Maybe they had to pay some fines some traffic tickets essentially.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#573

Post by mrunkel »

gruez wrote: post #163
adminu wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then, there is a switch to the most traditional of businesses with the most traditional business models. Who, the author argues, are engaging in price gauging. In the second paragraph he claims that apps cause this inflation He is saying that the traditional businesses use an app that allows for a legal way of price gauging. > The last paragraph portraits a stunning lack of economic knowledge, as companies raising…

>The author claims, that these companies raise prices more than inflation based cost increases in production would allow for. That's just supply and demand? People get mad that when there's an oil shortage, that oil companies raise prices above the cost of production, but they're happy to see oil companies' margin collapse when there's an oil glut.

No, the article says that the suppliers send data to a central service, which then tells them the optimal price, this service bases this price based on data sent by all other suppliers, and presumably gives all suppliers the same price.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#574

Post by JumpCrisscross »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #553
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I disagree that the government should concern itself with whether or not the company decides to take it out on employees who don't deserve it Those employees disagree with you and they vote. Every district has large employers whose employees would, as a voting bloc, flip a primary or even general election.

I honestly don't believe this is the case. I think Americans would largely support increased fines for corporate malfeasance. I think it much more likely that the large fines aren't assessed because those in the position to be fined also as a rule have more influence over the system itself. Though the result is the same in the end I guess.

> Americans would largely support increased fines for corporate malfeasance

Americans do. But every time it comes up, the discussion gets derailed with these ancilliary ideas. Just look at this thread. Fines are old and boring.

> the large fines aren't assessed because those in the position to be fined also as a rule have more influence over the system

There is also the practical matter of the power to levy large fines being, itself, immensely powerful. You don't want to create a fine czar only to lose control of them in a term or two.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#575

Post by BlueTemplar »

swiftcoder wrote: post #84
Eextra953 wrote: post #23

Does anybody know whats stopping ethical and slightly less greedy companies from outcompeting these conglomerates? Its a question I keep coming back to because if the market were efficient then competitors should be able to use that same data to undercut big potato (or big whatever). This never seems to happen.

Monopolies. They may not all have the 100% marketshare to convince regulators they legally constitute a monopoly, but in practice one can't compete on price with vertically-integrated conglomerates that already own the lion's share of the market, and have an existing relationship with all of your potential suppliers/logistics/retailers...

That's not what monopoly means in practice, and in fact, depending on jurisdiction, there's not even a >50% rule in place.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#576

Post by fransje26 »

cudgy wrote: post #567
fransje26 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL This graph is absolutely insane. As I am completely unfamiliar with what is represented, would you have some pointers on where to start to understand what it represents? I'm particularly intrigued by the very sharp rise during the covid time, when the global economy was in taters.

Go to the settings of the graph and set the graph to logarithmic. Growth is linear.

Ohhh, missed that. Thanks!

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#577

Post by fransje26 »

daedrdev wrote: post #532
fransje26 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL This graph is absolutely insane. As I am completely unfamiliar with what is represented, would you have some pointers on where to start to understand what it represents? I'm particularly intrigued by the very sharp rise during the covid time, when the global economy was in taters.

It's not as insane as it looks. They changed the definition of M2 in 2020, which means we expect to see a jump right then

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#578

Post by lores »

bschne wrote: post #537
arrosenberg wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that answers the question of why a box of cereal that costs a dollar or so to deliver landed to a store costs me $8 to buy. Middle men are taking a huge chunk of the pie!

Their point is simply that your cost estimate is likely wrong. > It costs pennies to produce, maybe a dollar in landed cost Kellanova last had gross, operating, and net margins of ~35%, ~13%, and ~8%, respectively [1]. Likewise, Walmart achieved ~25%, ~4%, ~3% [2]. This isn't really compatible with "someone makes 700% of net profits on this box of cereal", unless you assume cereal is single-handedly subsidizing huge…

A 13.5 oz box of Kellogg's frosted flakes is $11 at Walmarts. A BIGGER box of 16.5oz is $4.4 in Tesco in the UK, and store brand is $1.25. Salaries are higher on average in the US, but the minimum wage that will include many in the supply chain is higher in the UK. Yes, I would say that there is gouging going on. Besides, a company makes 0% profit if all of it goes to the executives' paychecks, doesn't it?

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#579

Post by bschne »

lores wrote: post #578
bschne wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their point is simply that your cost estimate is likely wrong. > It costs pennies to produce, maybe a dollar in landed cost Kellanova last had gross, operating, and net margins of ~35%, ~13%, and ~8%, respectively [1]. Likewise, Walmart achieved ~25%, ~4%, ~3% [2]. This isn't really compatible with "someone makes 700% of net profits on this box of cereal", unless you assume cereal is single-handedly subsidizing huge…

A 13.5 oz box of Kellogg's frosted flakes is $11 at Walmarts. A BIGGER box of 16.5oz is $4.4 in Tesco in the UK, and store brand is $1.25. Salaries are higher on average in the US, but the minimum wage that will include many in the supply chain is higher in the UK. Yes, I would say that there is gouging going on. Besides, a company makes 0% profit if all of it goes to the executives' paychecks, doesn't it?

Gross margins don‘t include executive pay on the cost side

Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app

#580

Post by olalonde »

plankers wrote: post #556
olalonde wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's simply false. Name one unregulated market where this has occurred.

The U.S. before antitrust laws existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Steel_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Pacific_Railroad

Standard Oil: Its monopoly was already crumbling before antitrust action. By 1911, market share had plunged from 90% to 64% as competitors like Gulf/Texaco emerged and new oil fields broke its grip.

Carnegie Steel: Government intervention. The federal government imposed steep tariffs on imported steel, shielding domestic producers like Carnegie from foreign competition. Without those tariffs, cheaper British/German steel would have kept Carnegie’s dominance in check.

Southern Pacific Railroad: Government intervention. The federal government gifted it, through the Pacific Railroad Acts, millions of acres and subsidized loans. This state-sponsored land monopoly let it block competitors from critical routes.

Post reply on HN