Live data from Hacker News

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

pluralistic.net

241–250 of 640 posts

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

#241
post #59

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.

There is one master plan tho: might is right. It gets pushed back, but it seeps through every contention wall we have put up so far.

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

#242
post #163
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.

They’re colluding to fix prices. That is a cartel. It is facilitated by a middleman app. Still unethical, and should be illegal.

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

#243
post #157

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…

The era of trump will accelerate this further. Not that Obama Biden were saviors, Trump and co are putting fuel on the fire

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

#244

I 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…

Did you read the article? The claim is that the app acts as a smokescreen to hide collusion. Or rather, it’s a new way to collude, and thus works as an obfuscation tactic. The app itself is immaterial: it’s using the technology as a way to dodge the law. In this case, w have laws against price fixing. Using an app for price fixing is a way for the price fixer to say, hey, it’s not me, it’s this other company that tells me pricing.

Ofc it’s the same outcome: price fixing.

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

#246
post #31

Earlier 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…

TBH I would think that frozen potatoes might have more competitors. It sounds like the kind of market that could have lots of players assuming that all it really comes down to is a warehouse by train or dock: It doesn't seem obvious that a 10 acre warehouse of frozen potatoes would have an obviously drastic cost advantage over another company with an 8 acre or 12 acre one.

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

#247

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.

> 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

#248
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.

Blaming all your problems on old people isn't any more attractive than blaming them on Jews/women/queers/etc.

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

#249
post #42

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…

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…

The corporate veil should provide enough protection from random and unforeseeable failures to encourage entrepreneurship, but not enough that it shields wrongdoers from consequences. Currently it shields nearly everyone from everything in nearly all cases from run-of-the-mill business failure all the way up to straight-up fraud.

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

#250

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.

Isn't that already the case? For instance Wells Fargo was fined $185M for fraudulently opening accounts customers didn't want[1]. Wells fargo (ie. management) weren't scheming to fraudulently open accounts. They only set aggressive sales goals, and that caused some employees to go rogue and commit fraud themselves.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_cross-selling_scan...

Post reply on HN