alt Hacker NewsNotice the difference. One is charging people more because they're actually costing you something by imposing an inconvenience, the other is charging people more because you've X-rayed their wallet and set the price to be the amount that cleans them out.
Notice also the thing the customers should be doing in response to the second one: Sharing the prices they're shown for everything with the other customers so they can arbitrage by having the person offered the lowest price be the one to order it.
Replies
> Notice also the thing the customers should be doing in response to the second one: Sharing the prices they're shown for everything with the other customers so they can arbitrage by having the person offered the lowest price be the one to order it.
Ah, but this is worst in industries where resale is not possible. For example, flights, digital games, and rideshare. Of course one has the option to just not fly, buy games, or use Uber, but this limits a lot of convenience and function in a modern society. This is why I think targeted regulation is not such a bad thing - provided, as you explain, that the reason for the price discrimination is not because the customer actually costs the business more.
It's not practical to have customers coordinating purchases in that manner. What should happen is the customers report to a regulatory agency "this seller is engaging in illegal price discrimination" and that agency brings the hammer down.
So is the idea that laws should allow price gouging only for certain reasons that they must be able to justify?
That would get gamed immediately and we'd be in the same spot. Allow price differences for problem customers that require more attention and airlines will say that why they change prices basedcon certain factors.