Hacker News

points by cowlevel 20 hours ago | 0 comments

As far as I can see, there's no evidence they're colluding here. They're just capturing the money that otherwise would have gone to scalpers.

Apparently the last three times this cycle happened, the manufacturers that built out capacity went bankrupt when it popped, and the ones that didn't didn't, so they're actually being wise.

[–] Lerc 19 hours ago

Well there was no evidence they were colluding until they got caught the previous two (three?) times.

[–] akoboldfrying 19 hours ago

Following this logic, I now suspect everyone of price collusion -- including myself

[–] Lerc 18 hours ago

Ok, to put it simply.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If an event happens, and multiple previous times that event happened a cause was identified. It is reasonable to suspect the same cause was responsible this time.

It does not give proof, but it does give reasonable suspicion.

[–] akoboldfrying 18 hours ago

Fair, I misread the GP's post, sorry. (For some reason I thought they were claiming that the companies that colluded in the past went bust, leaving only the non-colluding ones.)