Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

A lot of focus is on the bribers (TurboTax, H&R Block) rather than the bribees (politicians).

But that's curious because the bribers are acting in their own interests whereas the bribees are meant to protect the general public and are failing in their duties. The misplaced focus might actually be why this continues seemingly unabated.

Two other examples of this phenomenon: College textbooks and ticket fees (TicketMaster, et al). In both cases the company acts as a lightning rod deflecting blame away from the only parties able to actually change things (college professors and performers respectively) and who are failing in their duty to protect others (students and fans).

I'm surprised this doesn't have a name, seems super common (and quite effective).

PS - No doubt someone will intentionally or unintentionally misread my post as defending this behavior rather than pointing out that politicians are really the ones that allow this to continue. I'm critical that the focus is not on the MOST guilty, not that TurboTax et al aren't guilty.

Moralizing the incentives of politicians while framing business leaders' behavior as rational responses to their incentives somewhat betrays a lack of sophistication of thinking here.

Right. Under capitalism everyone is acting rationally here. Everyone is using whatever methods they can to accumulate profit.

that reads like a rationalization of selfishness. however, the rationalism underlying capitalism neither attempts to encourage nor discourage amoral behavior.

capitalism instead acknowledges that people will sometimes (often?) have selfish intentions and redirects that penchant toward productive economic purposes through competitive counterbalance.

it's still not ok to be a jerk, but if you are one, the system counteracts your selfishness with that of others to reach a greater good (in the form of efficient allocation of resources). "because capitalism" doesn't excuse bad behavior; rather, it brings bad behavior out in the open so other social structures/norms can deal with it.

Or you know they can form a cartel.

Unlike socialism where people do what exactly?

It's all moralizing, with one set under and additional constraint of civic duty. You have it squarely backwards. What you're getting at is less sophisticated than the point made, which is why it's not compelling.

I said that politicians are failing at their duty. Duty and morality are different concepts.

Businesses have a duty to make money, politicians have a duty to work in their constituent's best interests, only one of the two is failing in their duty but they're both acting immorally.

As an aside calling another post "dumb" is quite clearly against the site's rules. You're welcome to disagree but the civility is lacking.

I agree with your main point, and of course many other industries are the same. But you could also say politicians are acting in /their/ best interests in the system we have set up, so we need to change the system.

Your other two examples are a little fuzzier however. Professors often try to make as much material available at libraries, or online, etc as they can but don't really have substantial control over the publishing industry, and performers have /no control/ over ticketmaster. Ticketmaster contracts with venues, if you want to play in that venue, you've gotta go TM. Some bands (Pearl Jam notably) have tried to bypass this system entirely and other bands have managed to carve out exceptions to sell some block of tickets directly to fans without the fees, but unless they could go on mass strike, there's not much they can do to pressure them.

It's the arena/TM conglomerate that's the problem in that case.

> they can but don't really have substantial control over the publishing industry

Academics (professors, heads of departments, etc) are selecting the books to be used in their classes/programs. They're the king-makers. They're the gatekeeper for which of a publisher's books potentially hundreds of students are required to purchase.

This includes requiring students buy books containing one time use codes and books that re-version every couple of years driving up costs further.

The only people able to stop the publishing industry's abusive practice towards students is academic staff that refuse to do so, and have a duty to do so. The fact that nobody holds a professor responsible for assigning a $100+ book, with a one time use code, and a yearly re-versioning is absurd and why it continues to this day.

> Ticketmaster contracts with venues

And performers select the venue. If performers avoided venues with ticketmaster requirements, venues would likely be forced to offer a non-ticketmaster bundled option (particularly for very popular/famous artists).

> I'm surprised this doesn't have a name, seems super common (and quite effective).

It's called being a slimy piece of shit.

> I'm surprised this doesn't have a name

Isn't it just the principal–agent problem? Both the tax preparers and the government are agents of the people, but the government acts in its own interest (by not developing its own system) and TurboTax acts in its own interest (by misleading people into paying for something they promised to offer for free).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...

The bribes could easily be viewed as deliberately interfering with the politician's sworn oaths - the crime is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

And "acting in their own self interests" is an explanation, but not a justification, and doesn't lessen the crime in any way.

Not really following this logic. If the briber disappears, the bribee no longer has an incentive (at least in this case) to behave as the briber wanted. If instead the bribee disappears, it's quite plausible that the next bribee will happily take the briber's money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com