4 ms·
Yes they do, you just don't like that the answer is let them die.
by ikiris 9y ago
Yes they do, you just don't like that the answer is let them die.
- rectang 9y agoI love the answer of letting them die. The negative externalities of the big three CRAs exceed value they provide and if the market could respond to those externalities, they would go under. However, would whatever replaces the big three exhibit the same negative externalities and recreate the same situation of market failure?
- 8note 9y agoI think the more apt comparison to letting people die if they can afford healthcare is for Equifax to make all their data public, and you can pay Equifax a couple thousand a month to make data about you private.
- rectang 9y agoMeh, I misunderstood who "let them die" refer to -- I thought it was the CRAs, not people. :\ I still feel like your analogy doesn't adequately capture the negative externality in the identity theft that the CRAs enable. In a healthy marketplace, the cost of that identity theft would be borne by the people who profit from it, not innocent third parties. How do we get to a marketplace where that crushing cost falls upon the deserving party, dissuading them from their destructive course? We need to acknowledge that the quantitative change in the accessibility of personal credit information amounts to a qualitative change, justifying a rethink about who owns it.
- ams6110 9y ago> Meh, I misunderstood who "let them die" refer to -- I thought it was the CRAs not people. No, you understood correctly the first time.
- mikeash 9y agoIt seems like they don’t like that answer very much either. In my experience, it’s really hard to get that out of most libertarians.