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

311–320 of 640 posts

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

#311

Post by yapyap »

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…

I’d say “it’s not a crime if ur rich” or “it’s not a crime if ur powerful” is more fitting.

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

#312

Post by scarface_74 »

ryandrake wrote: post #286
scarface_74 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you propose putting 40% of the population of the US who have money invested in the S&P 500 in jail?

I’m not proposing that at all. False dichotomy. Is it possible that there is a reasonable middle ground somewhere between “shield everyone involved in corporate wrongdoing” and “send every investor to jail?”

Your words were

> One's investment into a criminal enterprise could arguably be contributing to or encouraging that crime

Every shareholder is an “investor”. Well not really, when you buy a stock unless you buy at IPO or secondary offering, you are buying an ownership share from another holder.

So if you really want to go after “investors” you would have to find all of the investors who invested before the company went public and the ones who bought at IPO.

We also have to go after any bank who lent the company money since they were also “involved in the criminal enterprise”.

In the case of Amazon, you would definitely have to go after Bezo’s ex-wife since she is a major shareholder.

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

#313

Post by insane_dreamer »

mminer237 wrote: post #278
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?

That's not actually true. Wage theft is maybe third: https://truthnotoutrage.com/2023/12/05/retail-theft-dwarfs-w... By all indicia, shoplifting is a much bigger problem. I know this myth and wage theft in general are really popular on social media. I think its lacking of representation in traditional media and prosecution is a mix of how much more clear-cut shoplifting is and just the victims report it more.

The numbers of retail theft are from the National Retail Federation based on a survey, so by no means a reliable independent source.

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

#314

Post by arrosenberg »

pwg wrote: post #232
amluto wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/deman…

Forget about oil for a second. Why is a large box of cereal $8 at the supermarket? It costs pennies to produce, maybe a dollar in landed cost. The small box costs almost the same landed and it's $5, which is also absurd. There is no supply shortage of corn and sugar, and no glut of demand for cereal.

I'm not stupid, I understand supply and demand. COVID was 4 years ago. Explain the $8 box of cereal.

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

#315

Post by tzury »

If 80% of goods in my shopping cart experienced price increases above the current inflation rate, wouldn't these higher prices contribute to a new, higher inflation rate?

After all, inflation is measured by tracking changes in consumer prices.

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

#316

Post by casey2 »

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…

If you go down the list, every single reason written or not that illegal taxicabs for example are illegal doesn't apply to ride sharing platforms this is why you see such a major propagandist push from taxi companies about Uber drivers being rapists, serial killers, mass shooters etc while taxi drivers are angles.

The laws exist for a reason and it's not to protect the wages class of people who drive taxis. Since ride-sharing doesn't break the letter nor the spirit there is very little desire to change laws to make it illegal.

An individual choosing to break the law on the other hand, well, we've already seen what happens, things get bad fairly quickly as opposed to the decade plus of relatively spotless service from Uber and similar companies. There is even a statistically significant gap in DUIs compared to certain cities that banned ride-sharing companies, though I haven't seen a proper meta-analysis yet.

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

#318

Post by gmueckl »

Aurornis wrote: post #194
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.…

> 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. The fallacy is assuming that the government will make everything cheap for consumers. In practice, government regulation of prices just changes the game. Look at any market with rent control: There are numerous meta-games around building or not building new supply, l…

The government won't make things cheaper. The point of the regulation would be to actively encumbered the monopolist company and either give strong incentives to split up or make room for nimble competitors.

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

#319

Post by throwaway98797 »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #77
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…

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.

yea sure let’s make taking risks even harder

we as a society are better off when people take risks

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

#320

Post by kjkjadksj »

Glyptodon wrote: post #246
stickfigure wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yet they don’t so clearly its not so easy. Who do you sell your potatos to? Mcdonalds? They probably have a contract already. Where do you even get your inputs, some farm that happens to not have a potato buyer lined up already? Where do you get your machinery for the process, from the toolmaker owned by the competitor perhaps that won’t sell you the state of the art?

Business concepts are easy. Actually doing business is hard no matter what it is. Especially when for one reason or another, 97% of the market is controlled by the potato cartel. Chances are you will find a Great Filter somewhere that ensures this cartels market share is maintained.

Post reply on HN