5 ms·

Air travel is not a free market - the capital requirements are insane, the cost of fuel is often subsidized by the government (you cannot tax or excise it IIRC)

Air travel is not a free market - the capital requirements are insane, the cost of fuel is often subsidized by the government (you cannot tax or excise it IIRC), you have a lot of regulations and so on ...

tomp 11y ago
Regulations are a part of a free market. They provide transparency and ensure that everyone is playing by the same rules.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "Regulations are a part of a free market." Are you sure? I've never heard another free market capitalist argue that government regulations are an important part of how their ideal market works. Can you point out any free market economists that have argued for government regulation?
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Regulations that make possible entrance to a market - standards, forced ineroperability, common carrier, dumb pipes etc - are generally good and provide more efficient market. Regulations that prevent entrance to a market - by artificially rising the capital requirements to the impossible, are probably not helping the free market.
    - tomp 11y ago
      Exactly - the government should prevent markets from becoming less free - discouraging monopoly, persecuting fraud, encouraging transparency, taxing (appropriately) externalities, and owning natural monopolies (like infrastructure - dumb pipes owned by the government or a very regulated entity, and used by market competitors). I also think there should be less regulation in certain very regulated markets (banking, food) to encourage experimentation, but those should come with restrictions (e.g. no advertising, limited sales volume, etc.) - I think the world of hedge funds is a good example - they have less restricitons and hence can offer lower costs and better (or less correlated) performance, but they are effectively closed off to the general public (only "knowledgeable" investors can invest).
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    How do those free market economists solve the problem of externalities?
    - asift 11y ago
      How do monopolistic entities full of self-interested humans solve problems of externalities? The economics research on public choice has done a great deal for setting aside the common yet inaccurate assumption that government agents pursue the interests of society. It's not appropriate to compare real world markets to utopian governments. Both are imperfect. The real question is which is superior under realistic assumptions.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > Both are imperfect. The real question is which is superior under realistic assumptions. And I'd say, why not both? It's obvious that the market is superior in many cases. It's also obvious that the government is superior in others. They both cover for each others' failures.
        asift 11y ago
        In a very narrow view (i.e., how the world exists at this moment) I agree that both are necessary. Over a longer time horizon, I'm not certain how "obvious" it is governments are superior. It takes time for alternative institutions to develop, but the institutional problems that are inherent to governments are avoidable through private institutions. The presence of governmental institutions causes a lot of distortion and disincentives to create alternative forms of governance (governance that could surpass governments in terms of quality provided), so I'm not certain we should simply look at the world as it is today and conclude that governments are inherently superior.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        But who says that governments are superior? It makes no sense, it's like saying that a heart is superior to a lung. It's not, you need both! Governments and markets cover for each others failures. Where a government is inflexible, a market can find an efficient solution. When a market is trapped in a race to the bottom, the government creates coordination. They complement each other. As for the argument that keeping the current government prevents us from experimenting with alternative forms, you could say the same about free market keeping us from experimenting with different forms of markets...
  - tomp 11y ago
    That's because those free market capitalists are (at best) hypocrites or (at worst) stupid. Obviously capitalism relies on regulation - of property rights, IP rights, contract laws, bans on fraud and insider trading (although opinions are mixed on that last one), ...
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      Free market capitalists argue that what we have now is not a free market. IP rights wouldn't exist in a free market system, for example. It's probably best to find another term to describe the market you see working, as 'free market' is what free market capitalists argue for. I don't know what a better term would be, but I'm sure that economists would've thought of one.
      - tomp 11y ago
        But what would exist in this ideal "free" market? IMO, without contract law and courts that enforce it and persecute fraud, you can't have a functional market (free or unfree). Also, without some laws that monopolize violence, the market would be much more, well, violent (you might think of that as "free", but I don't think that kind of freedom is beneficial to the society) - we can see that in numerous places on Earth right now, where there is no effective "government" and you have multiple factions fighting for power - it rarely encourages trade and entrepreneurship.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        I'm not advocating for free market economics, I'm only passing on information about what it means. The Wikipedia page is a fairly decent introduction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
- asift 11y ago
  Regulation is part of a free market, but governmental regulation is not (i.e., regulation imposed by a monopolistic entity). There are many forms of private governance and regulation that protect consumers. That's not to say free markets are utopias, but believing that governments are the only source of regulation is incorrect. In fact, in many cases private governance is far more effective (e.g., the private regulation Uber is subject to is stronger and more efficient than the governmental regulation traditional taxis are subject to). See "Private Governance" by Edward Stringham for some good examples of market governance in action. The book received the following review from Peter Thiel: "Stringham dispels state-worshipping fiction with historical fact to show how good governance has preceded Leviathan, ignores it when necessary, and can surpass it when it fails."
  - tomp 11y ago
    > Regulation is part of a free market, but governmental regulation is not Until someone comes, holds a gun to your face and takes your sandwich. Then you'll be thankful for government regulation. I'm absolutely certain that the government's (attempt of a) monopoly on violence is one of the most crucial aspects of free markets. Another is contract law.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Governments did not came from outer space, nor are they form a separate magisterium that's unrelated to free market. It's something that naturally forms as society grows larger than few hundred members and the simple interpersonal methods of coordination and punishing defectors (like losing support of the whole clan if you cheat) stop working. The whole idea of separating government from market models seems strange to me. Frankly, I fail to see how you can hold a working market in a big population without a somewhat monopolized government structure. If suddenly, say, the USGOV disappeared, leaving behind a libertarian utopia, I'm pretty sure it would quickly degenerate into acts of violence, an era of warlords and famine, after which people would probably figure out that a single entity enforcing some rules was generally not a bad idea.
    - asift 11y ago
      There are reasonable and intelligent criticisms of market institutions. This is not one of them. Exactly what recourse would I have against someone who stole my sandwich? Unless I know the person or there is solid evidence to identify the individual, the costs of investigation and prosecution far exceed the value to be recouped. Police will take my information, file a report, and nothing else will happen. Not only is that state not helpful under these conditions, but private institutions have often found solutions to similar problems before the government does. Look at Paypal. They faced very similar conditions of fighting fraud and theft that couldn't be remedied through legal means, so they developed many private forms of regulation which allowed online exchange to flourish.
nradov 11y ago
Air travel in the US is highly regulated, but the market is actually very free. If you have sufficient capital you can absolutely start a new airline and be carrying paying passengers in under a year. In fact you could probably do it in a few months by leasing existing aircraft and contracting with existing aviation service companies for most operations. The FAA actively supports new ventures and will work with them on the approval process.

tomp 11y ago

Regulations are a part of a free market. They provide transparency and ensure that everyone is playing by the same rules.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "Regulations are a part of a free market." Are you sure? I've never heard another free market capitalist argue that government regulations are an important part of how their ideal market works. Can you point out any free market economists that have argued for government regulation?
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Regulations that make possible entrance to a market - standards, forced ineroperability, common carrier, dumb pipes etc - are generally good and provide more efficient market. Regulations that prevent entrance to a market - by artificially rising the capital requirements to the impossible, are probably not helping the free market.
  - tomp 11y ago
    Exactly - the government should prevent markets from becoming less free - discouraging monopoly, persecuting fraud, encouraging transparency, taxing (appropriately) externalities, and owning natural monopolies (like infrastructure - dumb pipes owned by the government or a very regulated entity, and used by market competitors). I also think there should be less regulation in certain very regulated markets (banking, food) to encourage experimentation, but those should come with restrictions (e.g. no advertising, limited sales volume, etc.) - I think the world of hedge funds is a good example - they have less restricitons and hence can offer lower costs and better (or less correlated) performance, but they are effectively closed off to the general public (only "knowledgeable" investors can invest).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  How do those free market economists solve the problem of externalities?
  - asift 11y ago
    How do monopolistic entities full of self-interested humans solve problems of externalities? The economics research on public choice has done a great deal for setting aside the common yet inaccurate assumption that government agents pursue the interests of society. It's not appropriate to compare real world markets to utopian governments. Both are imperfect. The real question is which is superior under realistic assumptions.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > Both are imperfect. The real question is which is superior under realistic assumptions. And I'd say, why not both? It's obvious that the market is superior in many cases. It's also obvious that the government is superior in others. They both cover for each others' failures.
      - asift 11y ago
        In a very narrow view (i.e., how the world exists at this moment) I agree that both are necessary. Over a longer time horizon, I'm not certain how "obvious" it is governments are superior. It takes time for alternative institutions to develop, but the institutional problems that are inherent to governments are avoidable through private institutions. The presence of governmental institutions causes a lot of distortion and disincentives to create alternative forms of governance (governance that could surpass governments in terms of quality provided), so I'm not certain we should simply look at the world as it is today and conclude that governments are inherently superior.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        But who says that governments are superior? It makes no sense, it's like saying that a heart is superior to a lung. It's not, you need both! Governments and markets cover for each others failures. Where a government is inflexible, a market can find an efficient solution. When a market is trapped in a race to the bottom, the government creates coordination. They complement each other. As for the argument that keeping the current government prevents us from experimenting with alternative forms, you could say the same about free market keeping us from experimenting with different forms of markets...
- tomp 11y ago
  That's because those free market capitalists are (at best) hypocrites or (at worst) stupid. Obviously capitalism relies on regulation - of property rights, IP rights, contract laws, bans on fraud and insider trading (although opinions are mixed on that last one), ...
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    Free market capitalists argue that what we have now is not a free market. IP rights wouldn't exist in a free market system, for example. It's probably best to find another term to describe the market you see working, as 'free market' is what free market capitalists argue for. I don't know what a better term would be, but I'm sure that economists would've thought of one.
    - tomp 11y ago
      But what would exist in this ideal "free" market? IMO, without contract law and courts that enforce it and persecute fraud, you can't have a functional market (free or unfree). Also, without some laws that monopolize violence, the market would be much more, well, violent (you might think of that as "free", but I don't think that kind of freedom is beneficial to the society) - we can see that in numerous places on Earth right now, where there is no effective "government" and you have multiple factions fighting for power - it rarely encourages trade and entrepreneurship.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        I'm not advocating for free market economics, I'm only passing on information about what it means. The Wikipedia page is a fairly decent introduction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
asift 11y ago
Regulation is part of a free market, but governmental regulation is not (i.e., regulation imposed by a monopolistic entity). There are many forms of private governance and regulation that protect consumers. That's not to say free markets are utopias, but believing that governments are the only source of regulation is incorrect. In fact, in many cases private governance is far more effective (e.g., the private regulation Uber is subject to is stronger and more efficient than the governmental regulation traditional taxis are subject to). See "Private Governance" by Edward Stringham for some good examples of market governance in action. The book received the following review from Peter Thiel: "Stringham dispels state-worshipping fiction with historical fact to show how good governance has preceded Leviathan, ignores it when necessary, and can surpass it when it fails."
- tomp 11y ago
  > Regulation is part of a free market, but governmental regulation is not Until someone comes, holds a gun to your face and takes your sandwich. Then you'll be thankful for government regulation. I'm absolutely certain that the government's (attempt of a) monopoly on violence is one of the most crucial aspects of free markets. Another is contract law.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Governments did not came from outer space, nor are they form a separate magisterium that's unrelated to free market. It's something that naturally forms as society grows larger than few hundred members and the simple interpersonal methods of coordination and punishing defectors (like losing support of the whole clan if you cheat) stop working. The whole idea of separating government from market models seems strange to me. Frankly, I fail to see how you can hold a working market in a big population without a somewhat monopolized government structure. If suddenly, say, the USGOV disappeared, leaving behind a libertarian utopia, I'm pretty sure it would quickly degenerate into acts of violence, an era of warlords and famine, after which people would probably figure out that a single entity enforcing some rules was generally not a bad idea.
  - asift 11y ago
    There are reasonable and intelligent criticisms of market institutions. This is not one of them. Exactly what recourse would I have against someone who stole my sandwich? Unless I know the person or there is solid evidence to identify the individual, the costs of investigation and prosecution far exceed the value to be recouped. Police will take my information, file a report, and nothing else will happen. Not only is that state not helpful under these conditions, but private institutions have often found solutions to similar problems before the government does. Look at Paypal. They faced very similar conditions of fighting fraud and theft that couldn't be remedied through legal means, so they developed many private forms of regulation which allowed online exchange to flourish.

nradov 11y ago

Air travel in the US is highly regulated, but the market is actually very free. If you have sufficient capital you can absolutely start a new airline and be carrying paying passengers in under a year. In fact you could probably do it in a few months by leasing existing aircraft and contracting with existing aviation service companies for most operations. The FAA actively supports new ventures and will work with them on the approval process.