3 ms·

Did you really just "Double right on" the need for smart regulation and then proceed to armchair quarterback your way to another useless regulation? Look, we d

by jeremyt 10y ago

Did you really just "Double right on" the need for smart regulation and then proceed to armchair quarterback your way to another useless regulation? Look, we don't have a problem with overbooking in this country (USA). I saw a chart with numbers of how many voluntary and involuntary losses of seats there were on each airline. Even if you add everything together for all the airlines, for the whole year, it's like 10,000. And a huge percentage of those are voluntary rebookings. Do you know how many people fly every day? You've just introduced an idea for yet another regulation to fix a nonexistent problem that will screw up the airlines pricing strategy and most likely raise ticket prices for everyone. Just let the market sort it out, and it appears it already has. Most of the airlines have already revised their rebooking procedure. We. Don't. Need. More. Regulation. Smart or not. This is exactly the problem. Everybody wants smart regulation, and everybody thinks they are the smart ones.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
I came back to delete my post, but I think I'll leave it up. You make good points. My point was 1) the government has a role in product definition moreso than regulation, and that one regulation might do the work of 10,000 other ones. I'll stand by that, but congrats on calling me out. If I were suggesting an _additional_ regulation, you would have nailed it. But I was not. I was suggesting replacing about 5,000 pages with two sentences. Different thing entirely. I liked and sympathized with the rant, though. Be careful you don't accidentally sound like the guy the OP was talking about: the person who just wants to tear it all down with some kind of blind faith that no structure at all is needed. Ever since the first markets were set up, there has been structure, provided for either by the traders or some external party. Product definition allows the maximum amount of freedom with the fewest rules. People can trade any way they want, but they deserve a simple and clear label for the thing they're trading -- which is not the current situation. I'd argue 99.9% of the people flying have no idea at all of the trade they made when they gave up their money for a ride somewhere. That complexity and obfuscation is an even bigger enemy than overregulation. ADD: If I don't know what the hell I'm doing when I participate in a market, how could you possibly argue that regulations were either good or bad? They're impenetrable. No matter what side you come down on politically, that's way fucked up.
- jeremyt 10y ago
  I'm sorry, i'm just laughing. I appreciate your response, and I'm struggling to take it seriously, but I think you just admonished me for being one of those knee-jerk deregulationists while in the same breath suggesting that you can replace 5000 pages of regulation with two sentences. I'll do my best to add a serious comment though: The government has no business defining products. The government doesn't know what the market wants or what companies can offer, and it has no idea what the appropriate supply and demand curves look like or what features people value or not. Again, we just witnessed a situation in which an unregulated part of the market bit United in the ass and cost them a few million dollars, and now are they are rushing to fix it, along with all of the other airlines. No intervention from the government was needed, and now the problem no longer exists. I don't understand why you think the government stepping in and "defining" a product is going to help. There are many reasons why, but I'll just pull one out of my head: Governments have no idea what's coming. Any regulations or definitions for service unavoidably make it harder for new entrants to offer unique services and products. Maybe one of the airlines wants to move to your two-tiered system. If the government mandates it, then we have one choice, whether it is the best or not. I struggle to lay out my argument any more clearly, but I feel like you still, deep down, believe that the government has this secret cabal of smart people who are going to step in and, for example, sensibly define all of our products for us. Who are these people? /edit In the spirit of trying to agree on something, I will agree that regulations are too complex across the board. It's one of my personal causes. That said, calling for "smarter" regulation is not going to help.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    Ok, I give up. I ventured into this to try to show my fellow libertarians that most times we are our own worst enemy. We can find common ground and make progress without having to break out Hayek every five minutes. I still believe that, but I've had enough for one day. "...I feel like you still, deep down, believe that the government has this secret cabal of smart people who are going to step in and, for example, sensibly define all of our products for us...." No. I do not. I believe in consent of the governed, and making progress through reaching agreement on items that both sides can accept. That's it. Thanks for the chat.
Retric 10y ago
10,000 people suffer for what net gain though? If we say the refund must be 20,000$ plus 5x the ticket price airlines will still optimize and be profitable, but they are going to hesitate to regularly break their contracts 30+ times a day.

by jeremyt 10y ago

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

I came back to delete my post, but I think I'll leave it up. You make good points. My point was 1) the government has a role in product definition moreso than regulation, and that one regulation might do the work of 10,000 other ones. I'll stand by that, but congrats on calling me out. If I were suggesting an _additional_ regulation, you would have nailed it. But I was not. I was suggesting replacing about 5,000 pages with two sentences. Different thing entirely. I liked and sympathized with the rant, though. Be careful you don't accidentally sound like the guy the OP was talking about: the person who just wants to tear it all down with some kind of blind faith that no structure at all is needed. Ever since the first markets were set up, there has been structure, provided for either by the traders or some external party. Product definition allows the maximum amount of freedom with the fewest rules. People can trade any way they want, but they deserve a simple and clear label for the thing they're trading -- which is not the current situation. I'd argue 99.9% of the people flying have no idea at all of the trade they made when they gave up their money for a ride somewhere. That complexity and obfuscation is an even bigger enemy than overregulation. ADD: If I don't know what the hell I'm doing when I participate in a market, how could you possibly argue that regulations were either good or bad? They're impenetrable. No matter what side you come down on politically, that's way fucked up.

jeremyt 10y ago
I'm sorry, i'm just laughing. I appreciate your response, and I'm struggling to take it seriously, but I think you just admonished me for being one of those knee-jerk deregulationists while in the same breath suggesting that you can replace 5000 pages of regulation with two sentences. I'll do my best to add a serious comment though: The government has no business defining products. The government doesn't know what the market wants or what companies can offer, and it has no idea what the appropriate supply and demand curves look like or what features people value or not. Again, we just witnessed a situation in which an unregulated part of the market bit United in the ass and cost them a few million dollars, and now are they are rushing to fix it, along with all of the other airlines. No intervention from the government was needed, and now the problem no longer exists. I don't understand why you think the government stepping in and "defining" a product is going to help. There are many reasons why, but I'll just pull one out of my head: Governments have no idea what's coming. Any regulations or definitions for service unavoidably make it harder for new entrants to offer unique services and products. Maybe one of the airlines wants to move to your two-tiered system. If the government mandates it, then we have one choice, whether it is the best or not. I struggle to lay out my argument any more clearly, but I feel like you still, deep down, believe that the government has this secret cabal of smart people who are going to step in and, for example, sensibly define all of our products for us. Who are these people? /edit In the spirit of trying to agree on something, I will agree that regulations are too complex across the board. It's one of my personal causes. That said, calling for "smarter" regulation is not going to help.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  Ok, I give up. I ventured into this to try to show my fellow libertarians that most times we are our own worst enemy. We can find common ground and make progress without having to break out Hayek every five minutes. I still believe that, but I've had enough for one day. "...I feel like you still, deep down, believe that the government has this secret cabal of smart people who are going to step in and, for example, sensibly define all of our products for us...." No. I do not. I believe in consent of the governed, and making progress through reaching agreement on items that both sides can accept. That's it. Thanks for the chat.

Retric 10y ago

10,000 people suffer for what net gain though? If we say the refund must be 20,000$ plus 5x the ticket price airlines will still optimize and be profitable, but they are going to hesitate to regularly break their contracts 30+ times a day.