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

231–240 of 640 posts

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

#231

Post by brookst »

alt227 wrote: post #59
maiar wrote: 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…

I get the feeling this was the plan from begining.

While the lack of accountability for corporations is crazy, I’m a firm believer in the Cube observation: there is no master plan.

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

#232

Post by pwg »

amluto wrote: post #208
gruez wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> The supplies of these goods have had occasional disruptions but are largely unchanged.

Those "disruptions" you refer to create periods of "lack of supply" (i.e., less of the goods). That is what the "disruption" is, a temporary reduction in the "supply"

> The demand has not changed in any material way.

True, but, during the period of "temporary reduction in the supply" (i.e., the disruption) Econ 101's supply/demand curve will predict that the price will rise to make the "demand" during the period of limited supply equalize with the new supply level due to the disruption.

What often happens (and you see it most clearly with gasoline prices), is that the price reacts extremely quickly to the supply disruption by increasing fast (seemingly within hours). But then, when the "disruption" clears, and the supply amount returns to normal, the price tends to slowly drift downward (if it drifts downward at all).

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

#233

Post by otterley »

bdangubic wrote: post #227
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 thing is though - in America people are corporations except of course no one will teach you that. Open an single-person LLC and boom - you are now corporation. Have a rental, move it under LLC, own a car, LLC… now you are corporation (with limited to no liability) :)

That’s not quite true. It’s just the first step. Your business then has to observe and perform all the required customs and ceremonies (board meetings, etc.) in order to be respected by the law. Otherwise a court can “pierce the corporate veil” and find individuals liable for their actions.

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

#234

Post by gruez »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #215
gruez wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 un…

The thing to look for would be the way that making long firm fraud easy to prosecute would lead to companies being accountable for things they don’t want to be accountable for.

Like what? Moreover, what does this hold for public policy? Should we bring back debtor's prisons? That would be the obvious solution to long firm fraud.

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

#235

Post by technothrasher »

I was recently looking into my family history, and doing some research on my great grandfather's rural grocery store in 1930's Kansas. I found an old newspaper ad from the time where the four local stores were excited to offer a weekly sales program where each one would put a product on sale every week, and the other three would agree not to compete on that product. "Huh, that's an interesting gimmick... wait, wait, WHAT? How was that legal?"

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

#236

Post by ryandrake »

scarface_74 wrote: post #218
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to start seizing IP into the public domain and sending shareholders to jail when their companies misbehave. I'm on the hook if my dog bites somebody, it should be no different if the role of my dog is played by a company. Monetary risk is not a real enough risk.

So should every one who owns stock in a company - including mutual funds go to jail?

Maybe? It should at least be debatable, not taboo, to consider. One's investment into a criminal enterprise could arguably be contributing to or encouraging that crime. Having this nearly-impenetrable corporate veil that shields decision-makers, footsoldiers, and funders (both institutional and retail investors) from consequences of their actions seems like the extreme end of a spectrum that should be explored. But when you even bring up that it's a spectrum, people clutch their pearls and trot out the "think of those poor retiree passive investors" line that shuts down thought and prevents even considering change.

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

#237

Post by wat10000 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #188
wat10000 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A real world example: wage theft in the US is bigger than all other forms of theft combined. How often do you hear about it? We hear endlessly about shoplifting rings and lax enforcement by lefty prosecutors. When was the last time you saw coverage of workers not being paid what they’re owed? When was the last time somebody went to jail for not paying their workers what they’re owed?

I routinely see coverage of workers not being paid what they’re owed. People do sometimes go to jail for not paying workers what they’re owed ( https://kfoxtv.com/amp/news/local/el-paso-contractor-jailed-... ), but this article illustrates pretty clearly why you don’t hear more about it. Advocacy orgs aren’t going to brag about some random contractor or McDonalds supervisor going to jail, and the corporate fat cats t…

We need to redefine what it means to commit this sort of crime. The modern corporation is an expert in dodging responsibility. Upper management will make it very clear that everyone is expected to follow the law at all times. Then they’ll set up incentives, requirements, and quotas that more or less require breaking the law to meet. When the inevitable occurs, they’ll wring their hand and say, we don’t condone that behavior.

The management chain needs to be held more responsible for actions at the bottom. That doesn’t mean we put them in jail for every misdeed by some front-line worker, but they shouldn’t be allowed to turn a blind eye to systematic lawbreaking.

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

#238

Post by brookst »

RobotToaster wrote: post #186
layer8 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I’m sympathetic to the sentiment, I don’t see how “sending shareholders to jail” could possibly work, given how many people own shares. It’s like your dog would be collectively owned by a million people. Maybe you mean the board?

To continue the analogy, if a dog is aggressive and hurts people it gets put down, why not put down the corporation?

Because the ripple effects are much larger. Lay off a few thousand people in most cities and you’re sinking all sorts of businesses that had nothing to do with the crime.

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

#239

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#240

Post by tehjoker »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #209
arcbyte wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That or sharply raise the severity of lesser offenses if the perpetrator benefits financially from negligence with potential penalties including (a) corporate death penalty (revocation of charter) (b) nationalization.
Post reply on HN