|
|
|
|
|
by gibba999
1764 days ago
|
|
You're assuming perfect market transparency. That's a false assumption. Company A has good security, which adds $5 in your costs. Company B has poor security, which doesn't, which will lead to $500 down-the-line from a security breach and identity theft. It charges $2.50 less and otherwise has an identical product. You have no way to know that. You will go with company B, and you will split the $5 gain, where you save $2.50 and they take $2.50 more in profit. Company B externalizes costs onto the customer. Company A's customers have higher initial costs, but they wouldn't be defined as 'externalized.' |
|
The situation we have here is clearly company B. So we have two options:
- Let the victim (who is or was a customer) pay the $500
- Let the company pay the $500. They need to get that money [0], so they charge their current customers more money.
Either way, the bill goes to the customer. The only difference in the second scenario is that the company needs to increase prices, which will hurt them in the long run and (hopefully) justify the additional expenses in security. But they can't create money out of thin air [1].
> Company A's customers have higher initial costs, but they wouldn't be defined as 'externalized'.
You're right - I was wrong about the definition of externalized.
[0] Technically, they don't - they could go bankrupt. But that would be the first scenario all over again.
[1] Unless we're talking about a bank, of course ;)