3 ms·

I wonder how much of this is deliberate collusion, as opposed to an equilibrium I saw a theory in the comments on HN once that companies can 'collude' without

I wonder how much of this is deliberate collusion, as opposed to an equilibrium I saw a theory in the comments on HN once that companies can 'collude' without communicating with each other. If memory serves, it was different than just achieving an equilibrium. Maybe it's enough of a theory to have a name? Hopefully someone who knows what I'm thinking of can chime in. Edit: I may be thinking of "tacit collusion". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion - "Tacit collusion is a collusion between competitors, which do not explicitly exchange information and achieving an agreement about coordination of conduct."

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
They read each-other's press releases, they reasearch competitors, employees and mamagers move between companies. There is no way for them to not communicate. Just because bosses didnt sit down a and sign a deal in a smokey room doesnt mean no decision was made
nerdponx 6y ago
Yes, although typically tacit collusion is introduced with the example of price matching at big box retailers. The setup in this case is somewhat different, although the outcome is still an equilibrium in which all sellers "agree" to keep prices high (and above marginal cost) without directly communicating.