Oyster Barrier Tailgating

but it's alright

Out of interest how are you defining victimless crime here?

Oh dammit you silly rabbit.
A victimless crime is one without a victim..

There is no loss of utility to anyone in my test scenario.
The train is already going from Station A to Station B, the power consumption required to transport a single extra body is negligible, the cost of taking the payment would exceed the payment itself.

Agreed there is a high social cost as a perceived level of inequality or 'unfairness' is incurred;

Agreed there is a high social cost as a perceived level of inequality or 'unfairness' is incurred;

So - would you say this is moral or immoral?

Oh dammit you silly rabbit.
A victimless crime is one without a victim..

There is no loss of utility to anyone in my test scenario.
The train is already going from Station A to Station B, the power consumption required to transport a single extra body is negligible, the cost of taking the payment would exceed the payment itself.

Agreed there is a high social cost as a perceived level of inequality or 'unfairness' is incurred;

So therefore if there is no loss incurred to anyone bu jumping the train then if everyone did it there would be no impact?

In which case why do they charge people to travel at all if it costs more to process that payment than is made from it?

Sounds like they'd make a much larger profit if they gave it away for free.

tommy, you should go stealing from banks, big shops etc as there is no victim by your reasoning.

or you should stop being a thief, or put up with the consequences when you get caught

There is no loss of utility to anyone in my test scenario.

TfL's revenue is lowered by the price of your ticket that you didn't buy. In the first instance you are reducing the group profit by the net amount of that loss of revenue. Then the second instance depends on the actions of TfL in response to making a lower profit, which could be a reduction in service quality or an increase in ticket prices to maintain revenue going forward.

#studyingforaccountancyexams

Oh dammit you silly rabbit.
A victimless crime is one without a victim..

There is no loss of utility to anyone in my test scenario.
The train is already going from Station A to Station B, the power consumption required to transport a single extra body is negligible, the cost of taking the payment would exceed the payment itself.

Agreed there is a high social cost as a perceived level of inequality or 'unfairness' is incurred;

God you're so annoying.

and fucking stupid

He's just trolling now...or this...

...fucking stupid

Definitely that. In fact, I'd say the evidence in this thread is overwhelming. A serious case of fucking stupid.

So - would you say this is moral or immoral?

This is an excellent question, depends on if you believe society itself is moral or immoral and if it should be supported or improved..

Clearly im in the later camp

tommy, you should go stealing from banks, big shops etc as there is no victim by your reasoning.

wow your missing the point

TfL's revenue is lowered by the price of your ticket that you didn't buy. In the first instance you are reducing the group profit by the net amount of that loss of revenue. Then the second instance depends on the actions of TfL in response to making a lower profit, which could be a reduction in service quality or an increase in ticket prices to maintain revenue going forward.

#studyingforaccountancyexams

This isn't accountancy.. its economics.
Im guessing you won't be able to work out the difference.

Clearly im in the later camp

An anarchist? Or you believe in a different type of society, possibly where 'we can all just get along'? Or one of those wonderful libertarians?

Obvious troll is obvious.

Tommy, did you just ninja edit or am I going mad?

This is an excellent question, depends on if you believe society itself is moral or immoral and if it should be supported or improved..

Clearly im in the later camp

So you improve a society by acting to your own advantage, in which case the greediest members are the most moral?

This isn't accountancy.. its economics.
Im guessing you won't be able to work out the difference.

Strange that, it doesn't sound like anything that I covered when I did my economics degree.

[wanker] and got a double first [/wanker]

Economies of scale???

did you get this degree on the internet?

No. Economies of scale in this case mean that the unit cost of transporting 100 people is lower than that of transporting one person. What you were referring to was the nature of marginal cost, meaning that the extra cost to TfL of transporting you on the tube was very low. However, I was talking about the accounting identity that means that you not paying a fare cannot be a victimless crime. The victim, quite obviously, is whoever was legally entitled to the money that you declined to pay.

[double wanker] And my degree's from Cambridge, you may have heard of it. [/wanker]

Ha, from reading this thread I don't think it is us who are confused.

You obviously don't know your arse from your elbow so...

...how the fuck you thought you could hold a basic conversation about economics is beyond me.

I'm going to make a whole series of these.

Oh dammit you silly rabbit.
A victimless crime is one without a victim..

There is no loss of utility to anyone in my test scenario.
The train is already going from Station A to Station B, the power consumption required to transport a single extra body is negligible, the cost of taking the payment would exceed the payment itself.

Agreed there is a high social cost as a perceived level of inequality or 'unfairness' is incurred;

Flawed.

The timetables and frequency of service are based on passenger numbers. Passenger numbers are counted by ticket sales and subsequent revenue.

Bendy buses were hugely overcrowded for years due to the fact that people took part in the victimless crime of boarding without paying a ticket.

ncjlee - I'm going to be presumptuous right now so apologies for being a wanker. Why go into accountancy with a double first in Economics from Cam? That kind of degree could open up just about any job of interest.

Don't worry! It's not accountancy as such. I'm a graduate analyst in a debt restructuring house (basically investment banking but with some subtle differences) - there are various competency exams from the CISI that you have to take before you can become an 'approved person', some of which cover the analysis of financial statements. And sadly, as some of my friends have discovered, having a good degree doesn't guarantee you a job anymore, and is almost always trumped by relevant work experience.

Not that there's anything wrong with accountancy.

And sadly, as some of my friends have discovered, having a good degree doesn't guarantee you a job anymore, and is almost always trumped by relevant work experience.

fuck you kids and your good degrees.