> 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) an

> 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.