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

521–530 of 640 posts

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

#521

Post by fransje26 »

greyface- wrote: post #125

> Inflation is one of the most politically salient factors of this decade > Inflation has lots of causes, it's true. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL Algorithmic price fixing is certainly a not-insignificant part of the issue. But it's strange to see zero acknowledgement of the massive increase in money supply over the same time period. When doing causal analysis, we need to examine both the private sector and…

> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL

This graph is absolutely insane. As I am completely unfamiliar with what is represented, would you have some pointers on where to start to understand what it represents?

I'm particularly intrigued by the very sharp rise during the covid time, when the global economy was in taters.

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

#522

Post by scott_w »

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 article is very clear in the mechanism: he posits companies are “blindly” colluding by using third party price information to inform their decisions on their own pricing. This isn’t “collusion” because they’re not the picking up the phone to each other to discuss price fixing. They’re allowing a third party to tell them what others are charging and “coincidentally” decide that they’d like to charge that, too.

If this fits the legal definition of a cartel and price fixing, I can’t say. I’m not a lawyer nor do I know what US law says on this matter. However, it’s fair to say there’s a bad smell to the whole affair.

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

#523

Post by vtashkov »

binernerd wrote: post #111
vtashkov wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I’m not sure you understand so I’ll go slow. If one US company owns all of one thing it’s bad. Mmmkay?

If the government owns all it is FAR worse. Intel used to be a monopoly in practice. Now it’s not. The manufacturer of CPUs in USSR though never ceased to be the one and only. Is it dumbed enough for you to understand?

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

#524

Post by eesmith »

Ekaros wrote: post #514
eesmith wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Setting aside that 'too few young people' is by definition when there's a problem, thus making it a tautology, there's a lot we can do by changing our views of what retirement means. Retirement should not mean a life of air travel and cruises, achieved by pension savings. Retirement should not mean continuing to live in your 2,500 sq. ft. ranch house in the suburbs with only car access. John Maynard Keynes famously p…

Also in many cases we must accept the fact that people die. And some times keeping them alive is too costly or take too much labour. I admit it is horrible realisation, but I think inevitable one.

Sure. And also long recognized by the 'tried-and-true single-payer health care system's I referred to.

The US system has worse overall health outcomes, so it's like we aren't really trying.

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

#525

Post by fsckboy »

arrosenberg wrote: post #458
dghlsakjg wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it costs to produce is irrelevant in an equilibrium price for supply and demand. I'm not sure you do understand. Many people are buying the cereal for $8. Its that simple. There is enough demand for it at $8 that the company is happy with the market clearing their supply at that price point. If people were not buying the cereal at that price, they would lower it, or have gone out of business by now. If someone c…

Thanks for quoting the textbook at me. Does that seem like a competitive market to you? It shouldn't, because if it was, the cost would be pushed down near it's landed cost. That's a result of companies (both CPG producers and food market retailers) having concentrated market share in contravention of the law.

there is also competition for limited/expensive shelf space in the supermarket and only-so-much advertising media that must be shared with all other products

I'm old enough to remember that there used to be choices for different brands of various types of flakes: people use their dollars to exercise choices in the space of products to choose from, and they aren't any longer looking for a "dirt cheap corn flake shootout"

yes, there are also nonlinearities like minimum viable factory size, which leads to market concentration heading toward monopolization, but those factors are not specific to corn flakes nor driving that market.

did you know that Frosted Flakes are actually just stale corn flakes that are revived by spraying them with sugar? I used to work for a company modelling factory automation, and that was part of the model. So, if you don't sell sugar cereals, you're not as efficient.

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

#526

Post by _uxvx »

cratermoon wrote: post #123
vtashkov wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Redbaiting is SO 1950s

Redbaiting in 1950s turned out to be absolutely right thing to do, as latest unclassified documents showed. The problem is that now huge amount of us population live in the capitalism but preach socialism, even though there’s quite good choice of leftist countries where they can migrate to.

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

#527

Post by vtashkov »

zemo wrote: post #146
vtashkov wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The argument that you are making is that a single entity controlling the pricing of a good is bad. That's not a counter-argument, it's the same argument. It's bad when a government does it, it's bad when an oligopoly does it. More than one thing can be bad.

No, the argument I an countering is that since oligopoly is bad, government control would fix it. It has NEVER fixed it. Only more free market could.

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

#528

Post by dbalatero »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #394
gruez wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Tell that to Bill Hwang or Sam Bankman-Fried.

Bill Hwang and SBF committed the cardinal sin of business: losing other rich people's money. They both ran out of friends very quickly. Elizabeth Holmes was the same.

ding ding ding

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

#529

Post by dralley »

cpill wrote: post #72
djoldman wrote: post #16

It appears that the crux of the article is that a lot of price fixing is going on through the use of programs that suggest or encourage pricing among a few players, to the advantage of all the players and the disadvantage of the customer. Crackdowns do take time in the US but there is hope. See e.g.: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-realp...

The New Deal, which Bernie was resurrecting, was meant to break monopolies up, to promote completion and make price fixing impossible. the democrats voted against that as they are controlled by the big companies too. this is easy MAGA exists, and won.

Lina Khan led the most antitrust-focused DoJ in a century, which went after Apple, Google, Nvidia, Realpage, airlines, and dozens of other companies.

MAGA give zero fucks about antitrust, and antitrust or lack thereof has nothing to do with the creation of MAGA. That's such an absurd argument I have no idea how to even respond to it. The cornerstone of MAGA has always been nativism & reactionary politics.

I'm very, very tired of leftists shamelessly lying about anything and everything they can just to smear the Democrats.

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

#530

Post by fsflover »

dudeofea wrote: post #513
ajmurmann wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But the US has consistently been far too passive and accepts greedy companies far too readily." All companies are greedy. That's the reason for existence. Your point that monopolies and oligopolies need to be crushed is very valid though. I wish more mergers were rejected in the first place. Regulating prices is a recipe for disaster though.

Henry Ford tried not to be greedy all the time, then he was sued, and now all corporations are required to be greedy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co .

Which is why Purism is SPC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purism_(company)
Post reply on HN