Islander
4/29/2013 4:27:00 PM
On 4/28/2013 6:10 PM, mg wrote:
> On Apr 28, 5:48 pm, Islander <nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
>> On 4/27/2013 7:47 PM, mg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 27, 3:12 pm, Islander <nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2013 10:32 AM, mg wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 27, 9:19 am, Islander <nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/26/2013 4:31 PM, mg wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> How come the government has to pay for air traffic controllers,
>>>>>>> anyway? How come they can't privatize that and have the airlines pay
>>>>>>> for it?
>>
>>>>>> For the same reason that we don't want oil companies to define what is
>>>>>> safe for oil field development, safety, and transportation. Or if you
>>>>>> don't like that example, for the same reason that we don't want meat
>>>>>> packers to define what is safe for consumers.
>>
>>>>>> We don't trust private enterprise and the free market to be responsible
>>>>>> for the public safety.
>>
>>>>> I understand your point, but the government doesn't own oil companies
>>>>> (actually I think it should) and it doesn't own meat packer plants and
>>>>> it doesn't own or operate the airlines. Instead, we regulate them and
>>>>> I don't see why we can't do the same thing with traffic controllers.
>>
>>>>> Providing a free traffic control system for the airline industry
>>>>> strikes me as being yet another form of corporate welfare. I,
>>>>> personally, have only flown about 8-10 times in my entire life. I have
>>>>> some relatives that have probably never been on an airplane and some
>>>>> relatives that have probably only flown a couple of times in their
>>>>> life. They have all paid taxes, of course, for their entire life, yet
>>>>> they pay for a service that they rarely or ever use.
>>
>>>> We all benefit from the airline industry, even if we don't individually
>>>> use the service directly. It is part of the infrastructure that is
>>>> necessary for the operation of our society.
>>
>>>> I am skeptical of the belief that only those who benefit from specific
>>>> services should pay. It is often not that simple.
>>
>>> I certainly agree in the case of highways and bridges, for example,
>>> and I am very much opposed to toll roads and bridges. I think a lot of
>>> things simply come down to actual numbers, though, as opposed to
>>> abstract ideology and philosophy. So, just hypothetically speaking,
>>> where do you draw the line when the middle class and lower class are
>>> paying for a service they rarely use?
>>
>> I don't think that I can generalize on that. Just last Friday, for
>> example, my wife and I joined several other couples at the Lower Tavern
>> for burgers and brew. The guy who was sitting next to me was going on
>> about how awful the airlines are now, crowded, one has to pay for
>> everything that you got with your ticket before, etc. and he was
>> concluding that they should just raise their prices. He was blaming the
>> poor service on the efforts of the airlines to accommodate everyone.
>>
>> My response was, "How very elitist of you!" The reality is that if you
>> buy a first class ticket you get all those services, but he was so
>> intent on blaming the airlines for keeping their prices low that he
>> seemed to forget that he could elect to pay more for better service.
>>
>> Now, the question I would pose to you is whether or not everyday
>> passengers should get free meals, free checked luggage, change in
>> reservation without penalty, etc.? Now, I did a lot of business travel
>> before I retired (as do about 40% of airline travelers today), so I
>> enjoyed those perks and would not have gotten reimbursed for them if
>> they were charged to me (I had a really cheap employer). I was
>> definitely in the middle class at the time. Should someone in my
>> situation have to pay for the perks today? Should the occasional
>> traveler who is going off on vacation have to pay for the perks? Or
>> should the airlines do everything that they can to keep costs low for
>> everyone?
>
> In theory, the laws of supply and demand in a free enterprise system
> with vigorous competition should answer the question that you are
> asking and thousands more -- actually, I think it would be correct to
> say millions more. Companies have to make decisions all the time about
> what level of service to provide and, in the case of products, what
> level of quality their product should have.
>
> We have some problems with our version of free enterprise -- should we
> call it version 1.0? :-) One of the problems is that we really don't
> see a lot of vigorous competition in our system. For small businesses,
> I think we see a lot. For example, the gal that cuts my hair is a real
> sweetheart who cuts my hair just right and knows exactly how to keep
> an interesting conversation going with an old codger like me. In
> addition, I get every other hair cut free. I pay for the regular hair
> cut and then she calls me and tells me when it's time for a trim and
> she does the trim for free.
>
> When I say that is the problem with our version of free enterprise,
> incidentally, I actually think it's undoubtedly a problem with every
> country's version of free enterprise. That doesn't mean that free
> enterprise is bad, of course, it just means that we shouldn't worship
> it like some sort of golden calf and it means that it needs some
> regulation. And that's where we, the people on the left, come in. We
> do, however, need to be careful that we don't over do it.
>
> In regard to the specific question that the guy you were sitting with
> was asking, my response would be to ask him why he thinks his opinion
> is important and why he thinks anyone else should be interested in it.
> Either he believes in free enterprise and the laws of supply and
> demand, and he believes that the airlines are operating under those
> laws, or he doesn't. If he does believe that then why is he asking the
> question when the answer is so obvious?
>
> If, on the other hand, he doesn't believe that, then the question for
> him is whether he believes the airlines need additional regulation and
> whether he believes that those additional regulations should reach
> down to the level of minutia that he is talking about.
>
I think that his frustration started with the air traffic controllers
relief from the Sequester and, lubricated with beer, morphed into a
classic case of playing "isn't it awful" and nostalgia for "the good old
days." At one point he lapsed into complaining about government
regulations causing bad service until I reminded him that the airline
industry was highly regulated during the period that he was being
nostalgic about! I also reminded him that the aviation-related unions
were much more powerful back then too!
But overall, I tend to agree with you about competition working well for
the consumer when there is actually competition. As I've related here
several times in the past, one of the first questions that the venture
capitalists ask before investing in a small company is, "How will you
avoid competition?" Kind of says it all!
Lately, I've come to the conclusion that there is an additional game
being played in the private sector. Large companies have the resources
to influence law and they are using it to their advantage to drive small
companies out of business. Two significant examples are the tax code
and regulations. No large companies pay the top marginal tax rate on
businesses. Instead, they use the many loopholes and expensive tax
lawyers to give them an effective lower tax rate. This is unfair to
small businesses that do not have the same resources. Secondly, large
companies are complicit in implementing regulations that are oppressive
for small companies, but not to themselves. Once again, economy of
scale applies. A large company can easily afford to comply with a
regulation while a small company cannot.