It's not a crime if we do it with an app
Tech-enabled price coordination tools like PotatoTrac and RealPage are being accused of helping dominant firms in markets such as frozen potatoes and rental housing quietly fix prices, contributing to “greedflation” while staying a step ahead of traditional antitrust enforcement. Commenters contrast this with earlier platform “disruptors” like Uber and Airbnb that openly flouted local rules, arguing that the deeper problem is concentrated corporate power, weak penalties, and regulatory capture that let cartels form in everything from food to fire trucks. Proposed remedies range from tougher merger control and massive fines to breaking up oligopolies and rethinking how limited liability and corporate accountability should work.
Apps, “disruption,” and law‑breaking
- Long debate over whether companies like Uber and Airbnb are fundamentally different from earlier “disruptors” (YouTube, Netflix, Tesla, Craigslist, eBay, Ford).
- One side: Uber/Airbnb’s business model required ignoring existing taxi/hotel laws; YouTube et al mostly faced secondary issues (user piracy) and complied with takedown laws.
- Others argue that early YouTube and similar services actively benefited from infringement to grow, so they too “broke rules first, asked forgiveness later.”
- Some see Uber as a net positive (better service, lower DUIs, break taxi medallion cartels); others say ends don’t justify illegal tactics or regulatory arbitrage.
Algorithmic cartels and Potatotrac‑style tools
- Core concern: pricing/analytics platforms (for frozen potatoes, rent, etc.) act as coordination hubs so a few dominant firms can move prices in lockstep.
- Supporters of this view say that when 3–4 firms control ~97% of a commodity and all use the same pricing app, this is effectively a cartel, just with software as a smokescreen.
- Skeptics note some cited markets are highly competitive and low‑margin, and lawsuits are still pending; some question whether the “cartel” framing is overblown.
Monopolies, antitrust, and regulation
- Many commenters argue modern capitalism naturally drifts toward oligopoly; antitrust enforcement and merger blocking are seen as insufficient or too slow.
- Discussion of recent US antitrust efforts: some praise renewed enforcement; others say impact on big tech and large mergers has been modest.
- Disagreement over whether price regulation is “disaster” or necessary for natural monopolies/oligopolies.
Corporate crime vs individual crime
- Strong sentiment that corporations are treated leniently: small fines, no jail, rare “corporate death penalty,” contrasted with harsh treatment for petty individual crime.
- Debate over limited liability and the “corporate veil”: originally to spread risk, now seen as shielding large firms and executives from meaningful consequences.
- Proposals range from massive fines and forced stock dilution to jailing senior decision‑makers or large shareholders; others warn this is unworkable or would punish ordinary retirees.
Competition, “ethical” firms, and barriers to entry
- Repeated question: if incumbents overcharge, why don’t more ethical, lower‑margin competitors win?
- Answers raised: economies of scale, vertical integration, control of distribution/retail, regulatory barriers, access to capital, and incumbents’ ability to undercut or buy out entrants.
- Some argue cultural and structural incentives ensure “less greedy” firms are selected out at scale.
Inflation, money supply, and “greedflation”
- Part of the thread attributes price hikes mainly to corporate power and algorithmic collusion (“greedflation”).
- Others insist increased money supply, supply shocks (e.g., pandemics, wars), and standard supply–demand dynamics are major drivers; they criticize ignoring monetary policy.
- Overall: consensus that multiple forces interact, but disagreement on which is primary.