Capitalism Means Policing Big Companies

[Jarrod]

Regarding the bleached and deodorized beef tallow:

In the past, I’ve wondered whether anti-fraud laws would require nutritional labels.

Some capitalists might argue that as long as the company doesn’t outright lie (e.g., sell vegetable oil disguised as olive oil), then let the market determine if companies with minimal nutritional labels lose customers to companies with detailed nutritional labels.

I think principles like win-win and informed consent require that companies disclose any information that could alter the purchase decision of a reasonable customer. IOW, don’t hide info that—if disclosed—could cause reasonable customers not to want to buy the product.

But I’m not sure to what extent anti-fraud laws overlap with principles such as win-win and informed consent.

Does anti-fraud just mean to avoid outright lies? Or does it mean fully informed consent?

In another post, ET said:

@Elliot

Imagine Walmart had big signs up in every store that said “We charge different customers different prices based on algorithms and tons of data we have about you. Shop here to enter the low price lottery: we might give you low prices! Avoid some of our competitors that charge everyone the same price so you can’t get extra low prices there.”

And imagine Target had signs up saying “We charge everyone the same price instead of buying data from shady stalker mobile apps and then charging extra to people for not being desperately poor. We think that’s more fair and ethical.”

I imagine that even if fraud (in the sense of no outright lies) were well-policed, companies that practiced discriminatory pricing wouldn’t advertise it on “big signs up in every store”. They couldn’t lie about it if fraud were well-policed, but they wouldn’t advertise the fact on “big signs” either (IMO). So even if fraud were well-policed, it mightn’t necessarily be stark clear to prospective customers.

Unless one equates criminal fraud not merely with outright lies but with less-than-fully-informed consent (in the sense of failing to disclose information that a reasonable customer would consider relevant to their purchase decision).

Now that I’ve thought about it, I’ve decided: I think that anti-fraud laws should require companies to disclose information that a reasonable customer would consider relevant to their purchase decision. (Or something like that. Obviously articulating an exact law would require volumes more thought.)

---

Applying my new “reasonable customer” standard to stuff I wondered about before:

• Discriminatory Pricing: Companies could have a label/disclaimer on price tags or checkout or wherever saying that the price is based on one’s purchase history or “dynamic pricing in effect” or something like that

  • B2B & Bulk Buying: What about Microsoft secretly charging OEMs different prices or 19th century railways giving better deals to Rockefeller? Should that be disclosed? What about bulk buying in general? Idk.

• Nutritional Labels: I think reasonable people would consider this relevant. Many reasonable people wanna know how many calories, etc. It could be balanced with burden/practicality. E.g., small restaurants (i.e., not a large chain restaurant like McDonald’s) could be exempted if it places undue burden on them or isn’t practical.

Actually, now that I try to apply it, it seems a little trickier. Hmm. I guess it’s a pretty complex issue. Now I’m back to not being sure. Haha.