Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's not a crime if we do it with an app
241–250 of 640 posts
Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app
#242Earlier 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.
Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app
#243More 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…
Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app
#244I can't say I buy this argument? I think for some of the cases (like Uber?) it might be correct, but are they sure there isn't another force at play in a lot of other cases? I recall reading that with apartment rentals in NYC, the problem was (is?) apparently that there are literally contracts in place preventing landlords from deviating from the recommendation. That's the crux of the problem, not the app recommendat…
Ofc it’s the same outcome: price fixing.
Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app
#245Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current administration, however, plans to let M&A run wild. Oligopolies don’t need an app for uncoordinated price fixing. The fact that there’s a cartel that controls 97% of the frozen potato market is wild . This will only get worse without breakups.
> cartel that controls 97% of the frozen potato market This is a weird and emotionally loaded statement. Properly stated, the top four frozen potato producers have 97% of the market share . That doesn't sound odd? In a mature market with very little technology innovation (potatoes) and very little geographic specificity (frozen), how many companies would you expect? How many laundry detergent companies are there? How…
Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app
#247Earlier 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.
You still have the problem of punishing diffuse guilt. The correct answer is fines. Massive fines, potentially to the point of bankruptcy. We don't like to do that, however, because corporations have many stakeholders who may not deserve punishment, e.g. employees.
Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app
#248Earlier 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.
You're reading this on a device made in an underpaid Asian sweatshop, wearing clothes that are the same. Old people with pension funds are no more or less complicit in the brutality of the system than you are. Try blaming the people who are causing this situation on purpose, not the millions who are just trying to navigate it as best they can.
Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app
#249More 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…
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…
Re: It's not a crime if we do it with an app
#250Earlier 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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_cross-selling_scan...