Hacker News Reader

Comment by cushychicken | Hacker News Reader

I'd welcome your contrary explanation if you have one handy.

An alternate explanation would be that their accountants used the average cost method, and the trash can got averaged with a bunch of actual E-3 Sentry planes, or expensive component systems, or something.

This was the reason behind the $600 Hammer.

https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...

Corruption?

If you analyze how much the product and all associated processes can actually cost and then find a discrepancy (or find some pointless regulation that drives up the cost so much and explain how it was designed for profit and not purpose) then you can claim corruption. But simply saying "if prices look high to me it must mean corruption" is very naive.

If US gov bought cheap plastic stuff from another country instead there can well still be corruption expressed in their choice of suppliers etc.

"But simply saying "if prices look high to me it must mean corruption" is very naive."

Naive or not, this turns out to be true surprisingly frequently.

This is the money quote you can use to argue this is actually corruption:

> When the 707 fell out of use in the United States, the trash can was no longer a “commercial” item, meaning that Boeing was not obligated to keep its price at previous levels

So now one can look why it cost "mere" $300 before, unless Boeing losing money back then the price hike may be shady behavior and then someone should change supplier asap.

Single source supplier tend to have incresible bargaining power. And 50k per E-3 propably isn't even worth mentioning for everyone involved. Peanuts, actually.

"The sum is low enough so it's not corruption" is also naive. Another side of the same coin

Reply on news.ycombinator.com