[Social Structure] From the Lehman Shock to the Structural Distortions of Flea Market Apps, and the Need for Regulation

The case of the Lehman Shock in the financial markets vividly illustrates the impact of the structural distortion known as the "privatization of profits and the socialization of costs."
This event, where massive private profits were pursued through high-risk financial products while the enormous economic losses and social chaos caused by their collapse were externalized as a burden on public funds and society as a whole, is positioned as a quintessential modern lesson.

Many of the actions taken by financial institutions at the time were "legal," exploiting gaps in existing rules.
However, reflecting on the fact that such reckless risk-taking caused immense damage to society as a whole, subsequent legal improvements and stricter regulations were implemented globally and within Japan, as follows.

• Introduction of international capital adequacy regulations (Basel III): Obligated banks to secure capital and liquidity to prevent excessive risk-taking, thereby increasing resilience against unexpected shocks.

• Establishment of resolution frameworks for failures: Rules were created to handle losses systematically under self-responsibility, rather than relying on disorderly bailouts using tax money (public funds).

• Revision of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act: Accountability and investor protection rules in the sale of complex products were tightened.

Thus, there is a historical process where even actions that were legal at the time are strictly regulated through the rewriting of laws and rules when social injustice or the serious imposition of costs is proven.

Shifting risks and costs to society in pursuit of profit

To correct such distorted structures, a pinpoint approach of "imposing heavy penalties on those who shift risks to society" is more effective than excessively restricting economic freedom. The specific direction is as follows.

• Joint liability of platforms: Eliminating the exemption of being "merely a provider of a venue," and imposing an obligation on operating companies to bear direct legal and financial responsibility for fraud or social damage within their systems.

• Huge fines and punitive damages: Forcing investment in safety management by imposing penalties that far exceed the profits gained when negligence in risk management leads to trouble.

• Extension of liability to management and investors: When organized risk-shifting is identified, severe sanctions such as asset forfeiture are extended not only to the corporation but also to management and major investors.

This prevents companies from using excuses for exemption and forces them to thoroughly implement preventive measures and safety management for troubles occurring within their systems.

Actual cases

In flea market apps and similar services, cases that go beyond simple individual buying and selling of unwanted items and develop into social problems are occurring one after another.

• Speculation regarding the theft and resale of agricultural products

• Counterfeit goods sales incidents

• Incidents developing from transaction disputes (identifying the other party's home and committing arson)

• Listing of stolen goods

• Buying up limited collaboration products and trading cards (cases like One Piece, etc.)

• Buying up Happy Meals, etc., and mass disposal of food

• The hollowing out of primary distribution for concert tickets and events

• The listing of "cash" and "pre-charged prepaid cards"

• Credit card fraud and fictitious transactions (credit card cashing)

Vigilante justice and radicalization by "justice warriors" have emerged. Driven by a sense of justice that cannot tolerate users who resell limited items at high prices (scalpers), users who repeatedly post persistent criticism and extreme comments in the sellers' comment sections have beenconvicted of defamation or obstruction of business and ordered to pay damages in court casesleading to such developments.

The excuse of being a "tool" and the required social responsibility

Platforms such as flea market apps are merely "tools" to make buying and selling convenient for people.
The opinion that there is no inherent good or evil in the tool itself, and that the morals and responsibilities of the users who use it should be questioned, has a valid side.

To put it in familiar terms, a "kitchen knife" is an essential cooking utensil, but it can become a lethal weapon if used incorrectly.
While a "car" is a convenient means of transportation, it also carries the risk of causing serious accidents if one mistake is made.

However, how has society dealt with kitchen knives and cars precisely because of this?

In the early days when cars became widespread, when traffic accidents and dangerous driving became social issues, were they left alone on the grounds that "it is humans who drive, and the tool called a car is not to blame; only the driver is at fault"?
In reality, that was not the case. Mandatory safety standards (seat belts, airbags, crash-safety bodies, etc.) were imposed on automobile manufacturers, and comprehensive systems such as the Road Traffic Act, licensing systems, and vehicle inspection systems were created.
Precisely because they are tools with dangerous structures, the responsibility to guarantee safety was incorporated into the system and hardware side, rather than relying solely on the morals of the users.

Existing regulations such as the Secondhand Articles Dealer Act are premised on face-to-face transactions in physical stores, and it is structurally difficult to manage and grasp countless online transactions individually.
That is why we must consider how to design "online-specific safety obligations" rather than the same standards as face-to-face.
Although platforms are improving their terms of service and cooperating with the police, there is still a large gap in the scope of responsibility between the logic of exemption as a "mere provider of a venue" and the strict individual verification obligations imposed on real stores.

However, in the current situation where platforms have gained influence as social infrastructure, the conventional logic of exemption that "whatever happens inside is the responsibility of the individual user" can no longer be said to fulfill their social responsibility.

Disclaimer
Please note that the content stated in this article does not accuse or conclude against any specific company or individual, but is based on general considerations regarding social structural issues and past cases, as well as the author's personal views.