3 ms·

True, it was a terrible example. The guy in the story obviously didn't care about the $11 and change, as much as he cared about seeing justice done. His impul

True, it was a terrible example. The guy in the story obviously didn't care about the $11 and change, as much as he cared about seeing justice done. His impulse has value to society that far exceeds $11. Edit, re: By the reasoning he gives we should just let criminals and murderers free because it costs more to jail them and give them a fair trial than it does to just let them be free and commit the occasional crime. In some cases that does in fact make sense... 9/11 comes to mind. The price of living in a free society isn't $2 trillion plus incalculable collateral harm, it's losing a building and a couple of planes every once in awhile.

holiday 17y ago
Perhaps, but the scam site probably didn't care about the $11 either. I can't see them in dispair, OMG Somebody claimed the $11 back Crime Doesn't Pay! This wasn't a serious attack on their "business model". The Loss Aversion Bias is also behind one of the classic mistakes people make when investing in stocks: holding on to a loser while the price goes down and down, unwilling to sell and accept the loss before it gets any worse.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  >Perhaps, but the scam site probably didn't care about the $11 either. I'd expect the scammers to have a chargeback, which can be just the difference but is usually the total value and again can be more with an admin cost added. They also get a black mark from the bank which could with repetition lead them to having their account closed (but probably not if they're making good profits for the bank). Banks don't like spending money that could be used for bonuses and so the admin costs are more significant and will turn the bank off their client quite readily. Edit: there's Bystander Effect in there too - why should I complain as it probably won't do any good because other people won't complain.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
anamax 17y ago
> True, it was a terrible example. The guy in the story obviously didn't care about the $11 and change, as much as he cared about seeing justice done. His impulse has value to society that far exceeds $11. That last sentence is an important point. He's increasing the costs of the scammers.

holiday 17y ago

Perhaps, but the scam site probably didn't care about the $11 either. I can't see them in dispair, OMG Somebody claimed the $11 back Crime Doesn't Pay! This wasn't a serious attack on their "business model". The Loss Aversion Bias is also behind one of the classic mistakes people make when investing in stocks: holding on to a loser while the price goes down and down, unwilling to sell and accept the loss before it gets any worse.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
>Perhaps, but the scam site probably didn't care about the $11 either. I'd expect the scammers to have a chargeback, which can be just the difference but is usually the total value and again can be more with an admin cost added. They also get a black mark from the bank which could with repetition lead them to having their account closed (but probably not if they're making good profits for the bank). Banks don't like spending money that could be used for bonuses and so the admin costs are more significant and will turn the bank off their client quite readily. Edit: there's Bystander Effect in there too - why should I complain as it probably won't do any good because other people won't complain.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

anamax 17y ago

> True, it was a terrible example. The guy in the story obviously didn't care about the $11 and change, as much as he cared about seeing justice done. His impulse has value to society that far exceeds $11. That last sentence is an important point. He's increasing the costs of the scammers.