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

201–210 of 640 posts

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

#201

Post by gruez »

regularization wrote: post #176
gruez wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> They are a part of an economic and social system that makes things in such way

If you're trying to imply such crimes are hard to prosecute because The Powers That Be™ deliberately made it that, how does that explain the difficulty in prosecuting long firm fraud (and other white collar crimes)? You can argue that price fixing being hard to prosecute helps "corporate America" or whatever, but basically everyone is united against long firm fraud. Yet, it's hard to prosecute. Why is that?

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

#202

Post by bdangubic »

amazingamazing wrote: post #187
Pooge wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

if there's clear evidence to this, it's illegal

under what statute would this be illegal?

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

#203

Post by notTooFarGone »

vtashkov wrote: post #95
gmueckl wrote: 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]

Also in some tribes in south America - checkmate!

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

#204

Post by Pooge »

amazingamazing wrote: post #187
Pooge wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

if there's clear evidence to this, it's illegal

According to the author, there is - through an app - and they even admit to it.

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

#205

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

pwg wrote: post #197
regularization wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The GP did not mean "individual crimes". The meaning was: "most crimes that an individual will commit turn out to be easy to prosecute". I.e., shoplifter steals candy bar, surveillance camera has clear view of the shoplifters face, and of the theft, and security camera in parking lot gets license plate of car they drive away in. Easy conviction for prosecutor, as there little question of who committed nor of what cri…

That does not refute their main point:

> They are a part of an economic and social system that makes things in such way.

It’s difficult to prove intent but we make that necessary to prove when it doesn’t have to be. It could be that negligence is enough for it to be a crime.

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

#206

Post by danny_codes »

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.

The author’s entire thesis is that there isn’t a market for lots of goods because of oligopolies colluding. Supply and demand don’t work like the textbook says they will if there’s no market. He’s saying that almost all potatoes are sold by a couple firms, and those firms collude on price, effectively meaning (from a pricing perspective) that there is only one potato company. They therefore can charge whatever they want, up to the point of driving their customers out of business.

This is in contrast to a healthy market, in which producers compete by lowering prices to the point where the producer would go out of business.

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

#207

Post by pwg »

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.

Stock dividends and stock price appreciation are two sides of the same coin. Both are "money returns to investors in the business".

All that differs between them is the tax treatment each gets come tax time.

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

#208

Post by amluto »

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.

What supply and demand? The supplies of these goods have had occasional disruptions but are largely unchanged. The demand has not changed in any material way. And yet the prices have increased, and those increases have far outstripped the increases in the cost of goods sold.

It’s worth noting that, in classical economic theory, the price in a competitive market is set by matching supply and demand, but the price in a monopolistic market is set higher such that the profit (“producer surplus”) is maximized, which harms the buyers (“consumer surplus”) even more than the amount by which the seller benefits. The net loss is called deadweight loss, and one can argue about whether and how government policy should be arranged to minimize deadweight loss.

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

#209

Post by CogitoCogito »

arcbyte wrote: post #182
dartos wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Most crimes done by individuals are intentional. That is most often not the case with corporations. Intentionality is an important requirement in most crimes. That doest mean that there isn't plenty of room for more centralized civil protections against negligence and recklessness.

I guess if our goal were to stop this sort of corporate behavior, we would remove the requirement of a crime being intentional for corporations.

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

#210

Post by danju »

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…

[dead]
Post reply on HN