3 ms·
>Why is it different if they do that via a middleman? Because injecting a middleman into the situation creates a facade of plausible deniability. Obviously, s
by NickC25 2y ago
>Why is it different if they do that via a middleman?
Because injecting a middleman into the situation creates a facade of plausible deniability. Obviously, such deniability is complete nonsense to anyone with eyes and a brain, but here we are.
- VyseofArcadia 2y agoWhy is the very existence of such a middleman not illegal? I'm sure their sales pitch is more subtle than "we'll help you get away with price fixing", but it should be obvious that the effect is the same.
- plorkyeran 2y agoPaying someone to perform a market analysis to help you determine how much to charge is an incredibly normal thing to do. It only becomes illegal collusion when enough people are paying that single person that they start being able to control the market.
- Teever 2y agoWhat you may call a facade of plausible deniability others would call racketeering. There are laws against this kind of behavior what is lacking is sufficient enforcement of them.
- NickC25 2y agoI figured doing so would be a tad too on-the-nose in my original post, but yes, it is a clear cut case of racketeering, if not outright fraud. Agree completely regarding lack of sufficient enforcement. Honestly we could use a serious wave of RICO enforcement at the highest level in this country, targeting (but not limited to) pharma giants, major "healthcare" and & insurance companies, big banks, etc.