Live data from Hacker News

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

pluralistic.net

601–610 of 640 posts

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

#601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the law would be as such and be upheld, everyone would start making damm sure the companies they invest in are trying their hardest to adhere to the law So everyone in the US is going to do due diligence on all 500 companies in the S&P 500? Also you act as if the majority of Americans care about the law or ethics? You do remember the election we just had don’t you? The support that the majority has for 1500 crim…

No, just Fidelity and Vanguard (and S&P themselves) have to do due diligence for this sort of thing. In reality though, if $100 billion fines were on the table for companies like uber, that diligence would be priced into the stock and it would be far more effective.

I don't think that scratches the itch. The point is to hold people personally responsible for what their money is doing. Mutual funds should be risky business because they obfuscate important details from the person who's making the decision--that's not a recipe for markets that work well.

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

#602
post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed that massive fines (or, in my view preferably, massive stock dilutions) are better. However > You're proposing sending half of America to jail if any Fortune 500 commits a crime. That's a get-out-of-jail-free card, not meaningful deterrence. This is a poor argument. If the law would be as such and be upheld, everyone would start making damm sure the companies they invest in are trying their hardest to adhere t…

> If the law would be as such and be upheld It wouldn't be upheld. It couldn't be upheld. The first time somebody were stupid enough to try to uphold it, it would prompt a popular firestorm that would undo its effects. (I'm not even approaching the numerical impposibility of attempting to enforce something like that.)

The way I've been imagining it, the jailtime would be allocated among the top 5 or 10 shareholders according to their stake.

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

#603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not quite true. It’s just the first step. Your business then has to observe and perform all the required customs and ceremonies (board meetings, etc.) in order to be respected by the law. Otherwise a court can “pierce the corporate veil” and find individuals liable for their actions.

I am speaking from personal experience… all those customs and ceremonies are formalities you pay a company few bucks a month to handle for you…

What companies do this for you? I wasn't able to find any in a few minutes of research. I found several that operate as a registered agent, but that's just one piece of the puzzle.

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

#604
This article is a total bullshit.

The inflation after covid was caused ONLY for printing money with the covid excuse.

All Those "cartels" existed long before covid, and why they didn't raise the prices before?

If you rise the price, you open a space to other companies to sell at lower prices.

But if you print money and not grow the production of good and services, the money will worth less, making everything more pricey.

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

#605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

And to the extent that the definition of M2 changed in 2020 (the FRED series description indicates it did), this was only in response to the expansion of M1, to ensure that it was not double-counted in or removed from M2.

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

#606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing you are suggesting is jailing every adult American with a 401k when a corporation misbehaves. You say that shouldn't be taboo, it should be debatable. Alright, I'm listening, tell me how that wouldbsolve more problems than it would create.

Nobody said every shareholder would go to jail, just that it should be more common that some of them do. But supposing that you did propagate it to every shareholder... I think that creating an incentive to divest in companies that are likely to commit crimes, and to avoid financial instruments where you can't be sure just what it is your money is up to, would create a much healthier investment environment. There wou…

> Nobody said every shareholder would go to jail

You didn't, but the person I replied to did.

Two comments up was:

> So should every one who owns stock in a company - including mutual funds go to jail?

And the person I replied to says maybe so, let's consider it.

56% of US civilian workers have a IRA/401k or other work retirement plan. I say no, let's not consider jailing a majority of the country's working population.

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

#607
post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a "breaking point", it's the market rate. There's no landlord cartel; anyone can easily defect and lower their own prices. The entire food production and provision supply chain has razor-thin margins. If you're hyperfocusing on that industry, it's a sign that your heuristics are pointing you at the wrong things.

Cartel price fixing is not "market rate" by any honest definition.

Outright monopolistic pricing is also "the market rate". Frankly, virtually any price somebody is willing to pay is almost by definition "the market rate". It's a meaningless defense for an artificially high price.

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

#608
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.…

"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.

One race-to-the-bottom phenomenon that (to me at least) appears to aggravate the impact of "corporate greed" is the social loop that goes as follows:

1. company decides to push the boundaries of the socially acceptable when it comes to cutting corners (e.g. screwing their customers, or employees, or environment, or debtors)

2. People don't like it, but rationalize this as being a natural consequence of incorporation and the profit motive. Hence while they grumble, there negative impacts to public perception don't actually cost the company as much as you might think

2b. Even if there's a boycott, there will be vocal minority that thinks it's all a bunch of whiny . They'll actively harass or undermine said boycott or backlash, even if in a purely egotistical sense their interests are actually aligned with the boycotters

3. Social norm is reset; we all collectively expect even less from companies. That doesn't however mean the new norm is better or maintained, because as soon as there's some new major conflict between short-term profit and maintaining a decent reputation in public, we go back to step 1 from the new, lower baseline.

Stuff like increasing partisanship, and decreasing incentives for journalist (whether profession, citizen or influencer) to maintain their professional standing (as opposed to targeting clickbate) probably smears those gears nicely.

Many companies have historically clearly paid well over the odds to maintain their reputation, and done well doing so. It's just not true that nihilistic short term greed has always paid; obviously it didn't and still doesn't really. It profitable to do the little, but simultaneously also to do as many cheap things that materially affect public standing as possible.

By promoting the profit motive past a merely utilitarian means to an efficiency-optimizing end into a matter of national identity and point of distinction vs. in particular the USSR, we've shifted our culture beyond what's really rational. We (as a society) don't merely respect and understand the profit motive; we see it as a sign of merit - and significant enough merit that "winning" on that scale excuses a lot of other bad behavior.

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

#609
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.…

> to keep a free market from collapsing into one of the natural end states What is that natural end state? Natural monopolies are exceedingly rare, almost all monopolies are the result of government intervention .

I'm curious what you base that on. For instance, we've never really allowed literally cutthoat competition, nor things like fraud and we've generally not allowed misrepresentation. Governments intervene heavily and always have to set those kind of boundary conditions - but there are really lots of them. Economies of scale seem to be very, very common ever since the industrial revolution; and even more so in today's information-economy platform era.

I'm sure there are plenty of cases where significant competition is a natural end state, but how common those are in comparison? I'm curious.

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

#610
post #586
post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did Lena Kahn actually accomplish though? Maybe they had to pay some fines some traffic tickets essentially.

Many mergers were squashed. The M&A market shrank considerably. There’s only so much they can do as far as bringing and prosecuting cases in four years.

M&A market shrink because interest rates went up drastically while expectations of companies remained in the stratosphere in my opinion.

Lina Khan had little to do with it. What significant mergers were squashed that made a difference? What significant monopolies were busted?

Post reply on HN