4 ms·

No, in the case of NYT brokers, software would solve the problem of NYC brokers, by putting them out of a job. If you're from Germany, you have nothing to comp

No, in the case of NYT brokers, software would solve the problem of NYC brokers, by putting them out of a job. If you're from Germany, you have nothing to compare these people to, they run a racket that would be illegal there to begin with. They're nothing like the kind of rental agencies in Germany, they are individuals who basically figured out how to scalp entire buildings worth of apartments.

kennywinker 5y ago
Op suggested regulation. I.e. making certain practices illegal. You responded: > they run a racket that would be illegal there to begin with. Perhaps making it illegal in nyc as well, as op suggested, is the solution? Rather than letting a tech company replace the scalpers with a scalping monopoly
- denimnerd42 5y ago
  do you think NYC making a law or regulation is going to lead to less corruption? This is NYC we are talking about after all.
  - seigando 5y ago
    maybe we can find a software solution to the selective enforcement problem. ;)
- TheRealPomax 5y ago
  And how realistic, exactly, do you think getting regulation pushed through in NYC is, exactly? Unless there is true citizen outrage (and there will never be, given what market we're talking about), you're going to need lobbied buy-in from currently sitting politicians and their successors. So if you're lucky, maybe you'll get something tentative in 2040. In the mean time: software can solve this problem now. Now sounds good.
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    > software can solve this problem now. Software can displace a middle man, and replace it with a monopoly. Once monopoly power is in place, Software will then become more and more expensive until it is as bad or worse than what it supplanted. Investors will get rich, there will be a brief bubble where some people will get a VC-funded good deal, and then nobody else wins.
    - TheRealPomax 5y ago
      You're going to have to work a lot harder to argue the connection between the first and second part of that first sentence, because one does not lead to the other. You might be right --I don't think you are, but you might be-- but right now that sentence means nothing, and that fully undermines whatever point you're trying to argue.
      - LordDragonfang 5y ago
        VCs don't invest in a product that won't pay dividends. Of course they'll drive prices up once they've monopolised the market.
      - kennywinker 5y ago
        Are you saying that you don't think startups seek to displace middle men and create monopolies? or are you saying companies with monopolies don't exploit those to overcharge people as much as possible? Because neither of those statements is exactly controversial.
        TheRealPomax 5y ago
        What I think, and what you think, is irrelevant. Back up your claims, or they're just you trying to convince yourself you know something you don't. Cutting out the middle man does not by definition lead to monopolies, especially not when the market has tens of thousands of sellers (if not orders of magnitude more), and tens of thousands of buyers (or, renters, in this case. And again, if not orders of magnitudes more).

kennywinker 5y ago

Op suggested regulation. I.e. making certain practices illegal. You responded: > they run a racket that would be illegal there to begin with. Perhaps making it illegal in nyc as well, as op suggested, is the solution? Rather than letting a tech company replace the scalpers with a scalping monopoly

denimnerd42 5y ago
do you think NYC making a law or regulation is going to lead to less corruption? This is NYC we are talking about after all.
- seigando 5y ago
  maybe we can find a software solution to the selective enforcement problem. ;)
TheRealPomax 5y ago
And how realistic, exactly, do you think getting regulation pushed through in NYC is, exactly? Unless there is true citizen outrage (and there will never be, given what market we're talking about), you're going to need lobbied buy-in from currently sitting politicians and their successors. So if you're lucky, maybe you'll get something tentative in 2040. In the mean time: software can solve this problem now. Now sounds good.
- kennywinker 5y ago
  > software can solve this problem now. Software can displace a middle man, and replace it with a monopoly. Once monopoly power is in place, Software will then become more and more expensive until it is as bad or worse than what it supplanted. Investors will get rich, there will be a brief bubble where some people will get a VC-funded good deal, and then nobody else wins.
  - TheRealPomax 5y ago
    You're going to have to work a lot harder to argue the connection between the first and second part of that first sentence, because one does not lead to the other. You might be right --I don't think you are, but you might be-- but right now that sentence means nothing, and that fully undermines whatever point you're trying to argue.
    - LordDragonfang 5y ago
      VCs don't invest in a product that won't pay dividends. Of course they'll drive prices up once they've monopolised the market.
    - kennywinker 5y ago
      Are you saying that you don't think startups seek to displace middle men and create monopolies? or are you saying companies with monopolies don't exploit those to overcharge people as much as possible? Because neither of those statements is exactly controversial.
      - TheRealPomax 5y ago
        What I think, and what you think, is irrelevant. Back up your claims, or they're just you trying to convince yourself you know something you don't. Cutting out the middle man does not by definition lead to monopolies, especially not when the market has tens of thousands of sellers (if not orders of magnitude more), and tens of thousands of buyers (or, renters, in this case. And again, if not orders of magnitudes more).