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

591–600 of 640 posts

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

#591

Post by ToucanLoucan »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #480
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean this is just a private corporation that replaced an older private corporation (a taxi company) who in turn was trying to solve the core issue with car dependent infrastructure, which is: what does one do if one doesn't have a car? Because if you're just at home, car centered infrastructure while expensive, inefficient, and dangerous, does function. But then, if you leave home on a business trip or a vacation..…

The transit problem is largely a housing problem because mass transit needs a threshold amount of population density to function and that level is below what you get when the majority of the land area is zoned exclusively for single-family homes. But that's not something you can solve overnight -- it takes time to build stuff like that -- so people are still going to have to decide what to do today. Moreover, even if…

For sure, but we still have a massive proportion of what could be served by Mass Transit in the States all dedicated to cars, which is why gridlock is basically the American commuting experience in one word. I just spent a week in a major city visiting my employer's office for some face time with everyone, and every morning was started by spending about 20 minutes stuck in traffic, even though my hotel was only a short drive from HQ.

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

#592

Post by myroon5 »

daedrdev wrote: post #532
fransje26 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not as insane as it looks. They changed the definition of M2 in 2020, which means we expect to see a jump right then

The definition of M1 expanded in ~April 2020: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/05/savings-are-now-more...

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

#593

Post by dartos »

arcbyte wrote: post #546
mikelitoris wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bullshit argument that people in charge of these companies make. How do you know the "thief" that stole merchandise from a store wasn't going to come back to pay for it in an hour? You don't... you just assume the worst, which should be the case for corporations.

It's not a bullshit argument, it is a battle tested argument with a long history.

Is it roughly the same long history as the long history of corporations getting away with crimes that individuals could not?

Yknow maybe the modern day requires rethinking of some regulations regarding corporations.

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

#594

Post by swiftcoder »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #575
swiftcoder wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monopolies. They may not all have the 100% marketshare to convince regulators they legally constitute a monopoly, but in practice one can't compete on price with vertically-integrated conglomerates that already own the lion's share of the market, and have an existing relationship with all of your potential suppliers/logistics/retailers...

That's not what monopoly means in practice, and in fact, depending on jurisdiction, there's not even a >50% rule in place.

Indeed,though it is a popular way that a lot of discussions around US regulation of monopolies seem to derail

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

#596

Post by hnburnsy »

>Cal-Maine Foods, owns practically every brand of eggs in the case: Farmhouse Eggs, Sunups, Sunny Meadow, Egg-Land’s Best and Land O’ Lakes.

I wonder what else is inaccurate in this article...

"As of my last knowledge update in October 2023, Cal-Maine Foods is one of the largest producers and marketers of shell eggs in the United States. The company has a significant market share in the egg industry, often reported to be around 20% or more of the U.S. market."

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

#597

Post by lores »

bschne wrote: post #579
lores wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 13.5 oz box of Kellogg's frosted flakes is $11 at Walmarts. A BIGGER box of 16.5oz is $4.4 in Tesco in the UK, and store brand is $1.25. Salaries are higher on average in the US, but the minimum wage that will include many in the supply chain is higher in the UK. Yes, I would say that there is gouging going on. Besides, a company makes 0% profit if all of it goes to the executives' paychecks, doesn't it?

Gross margins don‘t include executive pay on the cost side

They include executive pay of all their suppliers :P

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

#598

Post by dghlsakjg »

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.

Here's your competition. Literally $1.97 cereal that is a direct substitute for Cheerios: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Honey-Nut-O-s-Oat-Bre...

The competition is clearly Cheerios which sells for $4.93, which is still not $8 (I did find Cheerios priced above $8 at other stores, but only in family and giant size which are 50-75% larger): https://www.walmart.com/ip/Honey-Nut-Cheerios-Heart-Healthy-...

I'm not making up the numbers. Or the substitutes. Every grocery store I go to has name brand cereals, and then in the exact same aisle, off-brand alternatives that sell for far less.

So yeah it seems like a pretty competitive market to me if I can buy an alternative for 40% of the price of the name brand by reaching for a lower shelf. Is $5 a lot for a box of cereal? Maybe, that's up to you as the consumer. But, name brand cereal is also not a necessity, you can live a very happy life, eating healthy breakfasts without ever having touched a box of cereal.

Again, it seems like a pretty competitive market. Cereal is not a necessity, there are tons of other breakfast foods that substitute just fine, there are a variety of companies selling more or less substitable products through a variety of outlets, and there are no real regulatory barriers to entry. If I don't like one retailer, I can choose from dozens of others owned by different companies. If you think that there is a ton of margin being made, this is your opportunity to get rich selling cereal, or even just investing in General Mills (which has a profit margin of 12% on their goods, and has under-performed the stock market as a whole).

If you don't like the price of an $8 box of cereal, go buy the $5 one, or the $2 one, or don't buy any cereal at all and eat yogurt, or order from Amazon.com where you can get the best of all worlds by having name brand Cheerios brought to your door for $1.99: https://www.amazon.com/Honey-Cheerios-Gluten-Free-Cereal/dp/...

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

#599

Post by dghlsakjg »

afro88 wrote: post #469
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…

But why is all that cereal $8? Where's the competition driving prices back down?

I will emphasize: because people are paying that much for it. Willingly.

The competition is at Amazon, where I can buy a box of Cheerios, delivered, for $1.99. Or at Walmart where I can buy name brand cereal for $5, and Walmart equivalents for $1.97.

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

#600

Post by dataflow »

danny_codes wrote: post #244
dataflow wrote: post #51

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 tel…

> Did you read the article?

Seriously? I read the entire damn article before posting. That's why you see my comment had "the part about 97%" in it. It's referring to what was in the article. Was this really necessary?

> it’s using the technology as a way to dodge the law. In this case, we 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.

And I was telling you I don't buy this. Because if someone can make more money from defecting from the coordination strategy, they absolutely will. Unless, you know, 97% of the market is owned by one player. Or unless the parties can legally prevent each other from defecting. Or unless they can just blatantly collide illegally because law enforcement is lazy. Etc.

I gave you an actual example. The rental thing in NYC has a contractual price enforcement mechanism that is the real culprit. Why the heck do you think they include that provision if merely having an app was enough to fix prices and obfuscate it?

Post reply on HN