Live data from Hacker News

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

pluralistic.net

101–110 of 640 posts

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

#101

More like "It's not a crime if a corporation does it." The US treats corporations with kid gloves. They get away with so much, and in those rare cases where a regulatory body does anything , it's often just a strongly worded letter, a warning, a threat to one day send a strongly worded letter, or, in really rare, extreme cases, a company official gets called in to say a few words in front of Congress. Nobody goes to…

i find this comment strange. limited liability is by design

Yes, limiting the liability of criminals from prosecution is the design. That's what's wrong with it, and why we must stop it.

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

#102

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.

That's called "barrier to entry" to a market (or "un-leveling the field of play"). Actually, that's what any significant corp use first to forbid any new competitor to compete (and that's the reason of the need of "disruption", meaning changing the field of play instead of trying to level it for all players).

Examples:

- laws and regulations provide great barrier for newcomers

- brand recognition (would you better by a know cigarette brand or unknown cheapest one?)

- technical and/or financial and/or IP investment, either because the INDUSTRIAL process need costly tools (so you need to be big from the start) or because you need some really specific know-how

- ...

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

#103
What a terrible article. The title and the first paragraph talk about how new business models are circumventing existing laws, which seems fair enough and actually quite an interesting subject.

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 ("so much of inflation can be attributed to a crime, done with an app"), then goes on to list a couple of traditional companies who are, he argues rising prices above inflation. And who he partially blames for inflation.

None of the examples he gives support the case he is trying to make in his title. Apparently being an "App" has absolutely zero to do with getting away with financial misdeeds.

None of the questions raised by the title are even investigated. And the core argument, that traditional companies are causing inflation, is never argued for. The last paragraph portraits a stunning lack of economic knowledge, as companies raising prices in line with inflation obviously would not lower prices after the source of the inflation is gone. The source of the inflation being gone does not cause inflation to reverse. And so the fair market price would not get lower, getting something so basic wrong seems ridiculous for someone leveling serious accusations at companies.

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

#104

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.

It's not like there's an open market you can actually just sell your frozen potato product on. The supply chain between producers and consumers is a web of vertical integration and deals between large oligopolistic companies.

If you can finangle a wedge of the market, they can just buy you, or apply local pricing pressure in lock-step based on their data broker recommendations.

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

#105
post #18

Don’t react to the Airbnb and Uber: read the article to the end. The core argument is tech empowers oligopolies which in turn drives inflation. There are other damning facts too: > private equity companies have rolled up all the fire truck companies, hiking the price of trucks, creating backlogs and bottlenecks for parts and service, and starving the nation's municipalities (including Los Angeles) Capitalism is dead.…

>The core argument is tech empowers oligopolies which in turn drives inflation.

No it isn't. How is potato farming "tech"?

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

#106

More like "It's not a crime if a corporation does it." The US treats corporations with kid gloves. They get away with so much, and in those rare cases where a regulatory body does anything , it's often just a strongly worded letter, a warning, a threat to one day send a strongly worded letter, or, in really rare, extreme cases, a company official gets called in to say a few words in front of Congress. Nobody goes to…

i find this comment strange. limited liability is by design

Limited liability means the shareholders are shielded. It’s not supposed to mean the company itself is shielded.

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

#107
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. The entire point of corporations is to shield individuals from penalties, but they don’t work. Business failure in good faith, where the shielding makes sense, is not really protected because bank loans require personal liability and because it’s impossible these days to recover from a damaged reputation unless you come from a family rich enough to hire its own PR firm. On the other hand, when it comes to letti…

Corporations are owned by people. Profit is distributed back to the society thru dividends. The largest shareholder category is pension funds, not billionaires. So effectively boomers are robbing younger generations.

Most profits are distributed by capital (like share price) increases rather than dividends.

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

#108
post #76

This is all a result of a lack of active market regulation. The government needs to step in actively to keep a free market from collapsing into one of the natural end states. But the US has consistently been far too passive and accepts greedy companies far too readily. If a single company can sell almost 100% of an essential good, they need to atomatically lose the power to set their prices and margins independently.…

[flagged]

If you can’t be intellectually curious why even be on HN?

Strawmanning like this may make you think you’re clever but it signals to the “average person” that your mind is made up.

I don’t read articles here because my mind is made up but because I like considering different points of view and data. Maybe start with that spirit next time?

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

#109

This is the way our world works. If you steal a potato, you will be arrested immediately and the case will be resolved in a few weeks or months. If you illegally fix the price of potatoes and steal billions from the market, you will be allowed to operate for years in the open while a lengthy civil procedure eventually may ask you to give 1 or 2% of what you stole back in fines. Don't blame the potato theives or potat…

The politicians didn't build this. The cartel owners did, so they are absolutely blame worthy. But politicians sit back and do nothing about it, due to regulatory capture.

Well I would argue political donations that politicians gladly accept leads to them sitting back and doing nothing.

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

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer is: nothing. The whole argument is predicated on a political conviction, not an economic reality.

This is naive and wrong. An example of this is Google Fiber and ironically Tesla. When Google Fiber came out, ISPs lobbied to sue Google and local governments to prevent Fiber from being available in their areas instead of competing. When Tesla tried to sell direct to consumer, dealerships sued to prevent it. Entrenched companies will always use the system to prevent competition. Regulatory capture is a term for a re…

I doubt there are any regulatory or legal restrictions that prevent newcomers from selling frozen potatoes.
Post reply on HN