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

171–180 of 640 posts

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

#171

Post by Cheer2171 »

9rx wrote: post #74
Cheer2171 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were you even on YouTube back then? It went viral for all kinds of viral home videos.

YouTube lived in obscurity until it became the top search result for “Lazy Sunday”.

And when NBC finally decided to issue a DMCA takedown months later, Youtube immediately complied. Because that is what the US has decided is the law around user-generated content. NBC had it up for free on iTunes and let it stay up on Youtube because it brought attention to SNL, until someone in NBC's legal or C-suite won some internal fight.

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

#172

Post by Pooge »

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.

> People get mad that when there's an oil shortage, that oil companies raise prices above the cost of production

It's a bit different when they all (i.e. cartel) agree to keep the same price even after the shock has passed, isn't it?

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

#173

Post by wat10000 »

istultus wrote: post #40

It really does suck that US companies have belatedly figured out that demand is elastic and jacked up the prices. Where I live that happened long ago. The thing is that he doesn't present any alternative. I know he's some variant of a communist, so does he suggest government control for everything? As if that solved anything? I guess what you find on empty market shelves is cheaper. Truly a question - what's your sol…

The direct fix is not that hard. I’m pretty sure the laws are already there, they just need to be used. Block mergers that create companies with massive market share. Break up monopolies. Severely punish price fixing.

The real question is, why doesn’t this happen? And answering that gets you to the real, difficult problem: the government doesn’t want to do these things because the government chiefly operates to serve the rich and powerful. Solving that is quite difficult indeed.

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

#174

Post by layer8 »

andrewfromx wrote: post #2

but would Airbnb or Uber exist if they tried to get permission first? Netflix streaming was illegal at first. Youtube for sure. Napster. Tesla (no dealerships it was direct sales to consumers.) Even craigslist or ebay or the very first Ford Model T. They break rules because that's the only way to test the waters and see if the public wants the rule broken?

The end doesn’t justify the means. And for half of your examples, one could debate the end being a good thing in the first place.

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

#175

Post by dartos »

gruez wrote: post #157
ryandrake wrote: post #17

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…

>Contrast that to how individuals get the hammer put down on them by the justice system if they so much as fart in the wrong room. The lesson from the last 50 years should be: If you want to commit a crime and get away with it, do it as a corporation. That's because most crimes "individuals" do are straightforwardly illegal and easy to prosecute, whereas the "crime if a corporation does it" are not. It's not any diff…

> That's because most crimes "individuals" do are straightforwardly illegal and easy to prosecute, whereas the "crime if a corporation does it" are not

Maybe that’s something that should be adjusted by a legislative body.

Crimes are only “easy” or “difficult” to prosecute because of the laws as they’re written.

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

#176

Post by regularization »

gruez wrote: post #157
ryandrake wrote: post #17

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…

>Contrast that to how individuals get the hammer put down on them by the justice system if they so much as fart in the wrong room. The lesson from the last 50 years should be: If you want to commit a crime and get away with it, do it as a corporation. That's because most crimes "individuals" do are straightforwardly illegal and easy to prosecute, whereas the "crime if a corporation does it" are not. It's not any diff…

> That's because most crimes "individuals" do are straightforwardly illegal and easy to prosecute, whereas the "crime if a corporation does it" are not. I

Yes, but why are individual crimes easy to prosecute and corporate crimes not. These are not things that just popped into being like a thunderstorm. They are a part of an economic and social system that makes things in such way.

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

#177

Post by miohtama »

eesmith wrote: post #90
miohtama wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hate that ever since I was a teen in the 80's I've been encouraged by government policy to put my retirement into pension funds which invest in the stock market, thus justifying all manner of immoral and unethical business practices in the name of protecting pensioner savings. I am complicit in a rigged system with no escape.

It's possible to save pension by investing without pension funds. However the trick is that most pension funds are underfunded and run like a Ponzi, thus constantly need larger and larger group of young people to fund them. If and when this system collapses is going to hurt the government and that's why the encounrage to keep the Ponzi going.

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

#178

Post by Aurornis »

cluckindan wrote: post #159
greyface- wrote: post #125

> Inflation is one of the most politically salient factors of this decade > Inflation has lots of causes, it's true. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL Algorithmic price fixing is certainly a not-insignificant part of the issue. But it's strange to see zero acknowledgement of the massive increase in money supply over the same time period. When doing causal analysis, we need to examine both the private sector and…

Increase in money supply only causes inflation if the money is spent on purchases of items with inflated prices (say, ferraris instead of basic food items). When the basic food items become ferraris, people have no choice on that.

> Increase in money supply only causes inflation if the money is spent on purchases of items with inflated prices

The economy doesn’t work like that. You can’t inject money but only have it apply to specific sectors.

Everything is interconnected in the economy. If a lot of money comes into the market it will cause a lot of activity, changes in demand, new job openings that entice employees upward, increased wage demands for jobs, new hires requiring higher wages, rising costs to cover those wages, and the cycle goes on and on.

You can’t isolate the effects of inflation. At the scale of economies, inflation effects ripple through everything.

Also, eggs are a terrible indicator. Did everyone forget about the bird flu? It’s a supply problem.

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

#179

Post by Frieren »

hermannj314 wrote: post #32

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…

> Don't blame the potato theives or potato cartels, blame the politicians that built the system to work this way.

The potato cartels are controlling the politicians. They are directly to blame.

Get rid of the super-rich and we will get politicians that work for the public instead of the super-rich.

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

#180

Post by miohtama »

whatevaa wrote: post #107
miohtama wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Share buybacks and dividends exist and are used in the approx same ratio, so it's probably incorrect to say most profits. Also buybacks do not change the pool of dividend receivers.
Post reply on HN