Thread

1. cyberax · 1790712096 · focus · HN ↗

   Why would a dynamic price be any less fair?

   E.g. I'm using a per-mile car insurance policy with a device that monitors my behavior. I'm a conservative driver, so I save a lot of money. But if such systems become universal, stupid speeders will get heavily penalized because they won't be able to offload their risks onto everyone else.

   So on the one hand, it's more fair to careful drivers. But on the other hand, it will logically remove all the "slack" in the system, which serves as a de-facto social safety net.

   1. quickthrowman · 1790719217 · focus · HN ↗

      Car insurance is a terrible example to use, drivers and cars are not fungible. The risk of insuring a driver and/or vehicle has a lot of variance.

      Do you want Amazon charging you twice as much for a product as someone that has half as much disposable income because they’ve determined you can afford to pay more for the exact same physical item?

      1. cyberax · 1790719800 · focus · HN ↗

         Sure. I'll just switch to someone else. I don't want the government regulating the way Amazon sets the prices.

         The parts that I _do_ want to be regulated are the requirements that Amazon puts on its merchants.

         1. quickthrowman · 1790800385 · focus · HN ↗

            Every retailer you switch to also notices your buying power and charges you twice as much. Now what?

            1. cyberax · 1790840275 · focus · HN ↗

               I switch to a retailer that only charges 1.5x, and then the other retailers start competing at 1.2x, and eventually 0.9x.

               Airlane fares are a good example. They are pretty much opaque, yet with robust competition the airlines can't all raise prices.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.