> Wouldn't it be simple to claim that more demand (for any given corner or area) is immediately reflected in the price? That doesn't sound like a scandal; Abs

> Wouldn't it be simple to claim that more demand (for any given corner or area) is immediately reflected in the price? That doesn't sound like a scandal; Absolutely not. This is why price-discrimination always happens jumping through a weird hoop or other. Imagine the typical example of price discrimination, S/M/L coffee for widely spread prices that don't have much to do with the cost for the amount of coffee with prices that wildly change up and down depending how busy it is, customers would be rightly pissed for getting screwed because they're obviously not getting a fair price. Price differentiation needs some sort of trick to obscure this fact. Otherwise it's like saying "getting away with this is perfectly fine because capitalism", which is motivated purely by greed, not the possible benefits of a free market. > it's harder to arrange for 10 cars to arrive at a spot than 1. I think you forgot to divide by ten, there. Try this statement for a fairer comparison: to arrange for 10 cars to arrive at 1 spot vs 10 cars at 10 spots Seems to me that the 10 cars at 1 spot should be cheaper. The only reason they get away with this price differentiation going the other way is because they are able to hide these prices from the customers. Driving up profits from unequal information availability is also known as "screwing people over", so yeah that'd be a scandal (except for all the HNers that will go "I am genuinely curious why this is so *surprising" to anyone" -- because getting screwed should be a surprise, otherwise you should've gotten mad sooner, like when we said there's no proof of getting screwed)