3 ms·

Constructive! Care to elaborate on both points?

seanflyon 12y ago
Theft involves taking something against the owners will. It is disturbing that someone would consider a voluntary informed transaction theft.
- lorddoig 12y ago
  The whole reason for my comment was that I thought the analysis going on here was wrong. I put forward a pretty solid case for why the chatter up to then wasn't the right way to look at the dynamics here. If we're analysing it and getting it wrong - how can we reasonably assert that the average, passive consumer is correctly informed? The use of the word 'theft' was evidently an almighty error here. How about: Monopolistic profit-seeking behaviour which is enabled by the consumer's lack of information about the transaction and a purposeful complication of the transaction mechanism Further, in what way does it "disturb" you? Are you terrified by the notion that maybe one day you'll try to sell me something and I'll scream theft? What a spine-tingling, yet wholly unlikely, nightmare that would be. And are we talking Girl Interrupted-disturbed, or something deeper? I'm going to get blasted for saying this but what I find mildly disturbing is the willingness of people to jump to the defence of organisations which are trying to screw them (even after a blow by blow explanation of exactly how they're being screwed) just because they're publicly-run. Hating on econ is trendy in this kind of scene at the moment, but most economists aren't these mystical agents fighting for some kind of fantasy right-wing utopia - just scientists that observe things and speculate on their properties. Economics is fundamentally the mathematical description of aggregate human behaviour, and so any paper with a new idea that makes it into popular culture is all too easily interpreted as some kind of manifesto for social change, after which the hate piles on thick and fast. It's an unfortunate misunderstanding that's creating biases which could ultimately end up depriving society of a lot of very useful knowledge.
  - randallsquared 12y ago
    > If we're analysing it and getting it wrong - how can we reasonably assert that the average, passive consumer is correctly informed? These are two different sets of knowledge. For the buyer to be informed requires only that they know what they're getting (probably this rounds to three trips for $9 in the minds of most, I'd wager) and what they're paying (clearly marked). If it's worth it to them at the time of transaction, the transaction happens. Simple. None of the rest of this stuff matters to the buyer. They've paid $9, they've got three trips, and there's a little bonus money left, encouraging them to keep the card instead of tossing it and worrying about the $1 for the next one later. Suggesting that the buyer should be incensed at the seller because the seller is somehow unfair, but only in a way that didn't affect what was being sold and for how much, is more politics than economics.
    - lorddoig 12y ago
      > For the buyer to be informed requires only that they know what they're getting (probably this rounds to three trips for $9 in the minds of most, I'd wager) and what they're paying (clearly marked) No. 'Complete information' as it's called includes anything that would materially affect the buyer's consumption decisions. The article author sought out full information, figured out what was going on, and adjusted his behaviour accordingly. The fullness of the information he uncovered was so novel, in fact, it made to #1 on HN. > Suggesting that the buyer should be incensed I didn't, I spoke for myself alone > only in a way that didn't affect what was being sold and for how much This is a very shallow analysis. The point is that the passive consumer thinks they've paid $1 to cover the cost of the card and the rest of the credit is their 'property' (or asset, at least) when in reality it's highly likely that another ~$2 of said credit will fall into the ownership of the MTA. The effective price of the card is > $3 in that case. The moral problem arises if the MTA designed it this way, which the article suggests they did, and I'm inclined to agree.
  - na85 12y ago
    It's disturbing because it is a revelation of the way economists apparently think: You believe that unless I act in a way that is beneficial to your profit margin, and in a way that is objectively not in my best interests, then it is theft. The implications there being that every private individual is worthy of contempt unless they act in blind, ignorant support of the profits of the corporate oligarchy. You used the word Theft on purpose, maybe not consciously, but because it came to your mind first. It reflects your true opinions on the matter, and they are quite frankly disgusting. Judging from your replies elsewhere you don't or can't comprehend just how repugnant your attitude is. It is not my social or legal responsibility to maximize MTA's revenue. The fact that it would even occur to a person like you (who studied economics) to classify "not getting ripped off" as theft makes me want to beat the shit out of someone.

Theft involves taking something against the owners will. It is disturbing that someone would consider a voluntary informed transaction theft.

lorddoig 12y ago
The whole reason for my comment was that I thought the analysis going on here was wrong. I put forward a pretty solid case for why the chatter up to then wasn't the right way to look at the dynamics here. If we're analysing it and getting it wrong - how can we reasonably assert that the average, passive consumer is correctly informed? The use of the word 'theft' was evidently an almighty error here. How about: Monopolistic profit-seeking behaviour which is enabled by the consumer's lack of information about the transaction and a purposeful complication of the transaction mechanism Further, in what way does it "disturb" you? Are you terrified by the notion that maybe one day you'll try to sell me something and I'll scream theft? What a spine-tingling, yet wholly unlikely, nightmare that would be. And are we talking Girl Interrupted-disturbed, or something deeper? I'm going to get blasted for saying this but what I find mildly disturbing is the willingness of people to jump to the defence of organisations which are trying to screw them (even after a blow by blow explanation of exactly how they're being screwed) just because they're publicly-run. Hating on econ is trendy in this kind of scene at the moment, but most economists aren't these mystical agents fighting for some kind of fantasy right-wing utopia - just scientists that observe things and speculate on their properties. Economics is fundamentally the mathematical description of aggregate human behaviour, and so any paper with a new idea that makes it into popular culture is all too easily interpreted as some kind of manifesto for social change, after which the hate piles on thick and fast. It's an unfortunate misunderstanding that's creating biases which could ultimately end up depriving society of a lot of very useful knowledge.
- randallsquared 12y ago
  > If we're analysing it and getting it wrong - how can we reasonably assert that the average, passive consumer is correctly informed? These are two different sets of knowledge. For the buyer to be informed requires only that they know what they're getting (probably this rounds to three trips for $9 in the minds of most, I'd wager) and what they're paying (clearly marked). If it's worth it to them at the time of transaction, the transaction happens. Simple. None of the rest of this stuff matters to the buyer. They've paid $9, they've got three trips, and there's a little bonus money left, encouraging them to keep the card instead of tossing it and worrying about the $1 for the next one later. Suggesting that the buyer should be incensed at the seller because the seller is somehow unfair, but only in a way that didn't affect what was being sold and for how much, is more politics than economics.
  - lorddoig 12y ago
    > For the buyer to be informed requires only that they know what they're getting (probably this rounds to three trips for $9 in the minds of most, I'd wager) and what they're paying (clearly marked) No. 'Complete information' as it's called includes anything that would materially affect the buyer's consumption decisions. The article author sought out full information, figured out what was going on, and adjusted his behaviour accordingly. The fullness of the information he uncovered was so novel, in fact, it made to #1 on HN. > Suggesting that the buyer should be incensed I didn't, I spoke for myself alone > only in a way that didn't affect what was being sold and for how much This is a very shallow analysis. The point is that the passive consumer thinks they've paid $1 to cover the cost of the card and the rest of the credit is their 'property' (or asset, at least) when in reality it's highly likely that another ~$2 of said credit will fall into the ownership of the MTA. The effective price of the card is > $3 in that case. The moral problem arises if the MTA designed it this way, which the article suggests they did, and I'm inclined to agree.
- na85 12y ago
  It's disturbing because it is a revelation of the way economists apparently think: You believe that unless I act in a way that is beneficial to your profit margin, and in a way that is objectively not in my best interests, then it is theft. The implications there being that every private individual is worthy of contempt unless they act in blind, ignorant support of the profits of the corporate oligarchy. You used the word Theft on purpose, maybe not consciously, but because it came to your mind first. It reflects your true opinions on the matter, and they are quite frankly disgusting. Judging from your replies elsewhere you don't or can't comprehend just how repugnant your attitude is. It is not my social or legal responsibility to maximize MTA's revenue. The fact that it would even occur to a person like you (who studied economics) to classify "not getting ripped off" as theft makes me want to beat the shit out of someone.