Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

No I agree with EJ here - if you don't use a CC, it's a lot more difficult to dispute a charge. The CCs have a much stronger arm to deal with chargebacks or whatever it's called than the average person.  That also sounds like complete trash or corruption that it took a year to get that overcharge corrected.

I can't say I've looked into any laws that "make it legal for companies to overcharge so long as they refund it later."  I suspect there are probably laws that make it look like that, but not carte-blanche, otherwise why wouldn't companies basically just constantly overcharge by $100s, sit on the cash for a year or whatever, and just pay you back the amount with no penalty?  Even if not protected by CC company lawyers, this doesn't happen constantly, which it would if companies could just "overcharge and refund way later" whenever they wanted.

[Maximum Spin]

No I agree with EJ here - if you don't use a CC, it's a lot more difficult to dispute a charge. The CCs have a much stronger arm to deal with chargebacks or whatever it's called than the average person.  That also sounds like complete trash or corruption that it took a year to get that overcharge corrected.

I can't say I've looked into any laws that "make it legal for companies to overcharge so long as they refund it later."  I suspect there are probably laws that make it look like that, but not carte-blanche, otherwise why wouldn't companies basically just constantly overcharge by $100s, sit on the cash for a year or whatever, and just pay you back the amount with no penalty?  Even if not protected by CC company lawyers, this doesn't happen constantly, which it would if companies could just "overcharge and refund way later" whenever they wanted.

No, I'm talking about the specific example EuchreJack cited. An electric company had some kind of technical problem with their meters, so they charged based on estimated usage, which is industry standard. With physical dial meters like we have here, they can even charge estimated usage normally - here, meters are checked every other month, with estimated charges in the off months. Customers then complained that the estimated usage was much higher than their actual usage, but they're allowed to do that, and it's corrected for in the next bill based on actual usage. You won't be able to charge that back.

[EuchreJack]

It's Slammer Time, Rich Fucker!
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/tech-company-ceo-sentenced-to-2-years-in-prison-for-conspiracy-tax-violation-charges/

[hector13]

Stealing $3 million still probably gets you less time in jail than shoplifting goods at a fraction of that amount.

[Loud Whispers]

Stealing $3 million still probably gets you less time in jail than shoplifting goods at a fraction of that amount.

I'm just glad the Sackler bankruptcy got overturned. It wouldn't make sense for people to get killed over dealing grams of weed whilst a cartel dealing in billions of opiate pills got off free

[EuchreJack]

Stealing $3 million still probably gets you less time in jail than shoplifting goods at a fraction of that amount.

I'm just glad the Sackler bankruptcy got overturned. It wouldn't make sense for people to get killed over dealing grams of weed whilst a cartel dealing in billions of opiate pills got off free

Er, you might want to put away the champagne. I'm reasonably sure the Supreme Court is hearing the case so they can expand Bankruptcy Protection to more Ultra-rich people. Or maybe they're fishing for more bribe money, it's hard to tell with the Supreme Court...

[McTraveller]

This is veering a bit from economics into politics… unless we are talking about tax theory or the economics of corruption, sounds like this topic is for Ameripol or the SCOTUS thread.

[Loud Whispers]

Er, you might want to put away the champagne. I'm reasonably sure the Supreme Court is hearing the case so they can expand Bankruptcy Protection to more Ultra-rich people. Or maybe they're fishing for more bribe money, it's hard to tell with the Supreme Court...

>:[

Maybe this is another Trump legacy feature

[Great Order]

Since this is *the* economics thread, what economics do you guys prescribe to? Like, I consider myself a market socialist, I'm not exactly big into the whole "A handful of guys owns a not-insignificant fraction of global economic output" idea, but at the same time between the failures of state-owned economies and the fact that it simply moves the power from capitalists to government (Which is historically authoritarian in these countries), it feels like the best compromise, especially with regulation. It's also a system people are mostly familiar with, since there's still regular market forces at work.

I'm just curious what kind of mix we've got here, and the reasons for them.

[hector13]

Hang the CEOs.

Can’t trust private enterprise to have society’s best interests at its heart, but it does allow for innovation. Infrastructure should be run by government entities - and what counts as infrastructure should be regularly evaluated - and private enterprise needs to be regulated quite a lot to discourage them from being proper dickheads to their employees and/or customers.

[McTraveller]

Eh, treatment of CEOs is a political view though, isn't it? 

I don't know how to class myself economically. I'm a "first principles" person: wealth is manufacturing and agriculture and education, everything else is value trades.

"All else equal" is rarely reality.

Supply and demand rule.

You can't fix shortages with money alone (it only works if the change in where money is increases production or gets produce where it's needed).

Money is useful, but is easily abused because it doesn't obey physical laws (like manufacturing and agriculture).

Rent Seeking and artificial scarcity are Bad Things™.

Real profit is doing more with less input, not just having a bigger bank account. (Macro profit vs micro profit).

Wealth is absolute, value is relative.

Unrealized income is not a loss. (You cannot lose more than you spent.)

Money isn't the only way to measure value.

People (in aggregate) are bad at evaluating future impact of present transactions.

Don't pay two sandwiches today to get one sandwich in the future.

Stuff like that.

[Loud Whispers]

Unrealized income is not a loss. (You cannot lose more than you spent.)

-Disney says unrealised income is loss
-Every time you pirate a movie Disney loses $20 potential revenue
-Make 100 copies of a movie
-Disney loses $2000
-Repeat until Disney dies

[Strongpoint]

Union leaders in Argentina’s aviation industry have said they will fiercely resist incoming President Javier Milei’s plans to privatise the state airline, in an early sign of the tumultuous relationship the libertarian is expected to have with the country’s powerful labour movement.

Following his victory in a presidential run-off vote on Sunday, Milei said he aimed to hand over shares in Argentina’s state-owned airline Aerolíneas Argentinas to its workers and reduce the state funding on which it relies.

“If he wants to take Aerolíneas, he will have to kill us,” said Pablo Biró, leader of Argentina’s airline pilots’ union, on Wednesday. “And when I say kill, I mean literally: he will have to take dead bodies and I’ll sign up first.”

The hard-left Unidad Piquetera social movement has announced plans to lead a march through downtown Buenos Aires on Thursday to oppose Milei’s austerity plans, while its leaders will meet to co-ordinate a “battle plan” for the coming months.

I find it absolutely hilarious when an anarcho-capitalist wants to transfer the ownership from the state to the workers and socialists scream - "over our dead bodies!"

[hector13]

The airline was nationalized in ‘08, and hasn’t made a profit since. It’s projected to lose more than $100 million this year, and improvement over last years losses of ~$250 million.

Privatizing it will cost jobs, benefits, working conditions, and the consumer as they cut unprofitable routes.

[Strongpoint]

I understand why they don't want it. I still find it hilarious that state capitalism with subsidies is better for the socialist union in question than owning means of production and taking responsibility for it.