5 ms·

Of course they are. OF COURSE THEY ARE. Why is it that every...single...time a rule that purports to give "more information to the customer" is deemed "an unr

Of course they are. OF COURSE THEY ARE. Why is it that every...single...time a rule that purports to give "more information to the customer" is deemed "an unreasonable regulatory burden?" The ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of capitalism is that market participants are supposed to trade based on equality of information. But no, not now. Customers aren't entitled to know what something will cost before they buy it or in a way that enables comparisons. That's just unreasonable. How can we possibly expect a business whose entire model is the juggling of pricing and availability information for maximum profit to EVER be able to figure out how to display the costs for ancillary services at point of purchase? Damn.

roenxi 9y ago
I dunno the nuances in America, but from an Australian perspective; this sort of rule is a great target for removal, it is too prescriptive. It would be better to have a rule 'costs must be clearly identified to consumers before the time of purchase' and then hit everyone with it. Companies have to comply with regulation. That literally means they need to have a person who audits that the rule is being complied with (amongst other compliance duties). If the rule is not being complied with, someone must fix it even if the airline ticket would be easily comparable without the rule. Management must put valuable time and attention into this process because they are obliged to comply with the rules. On the other hand, the government has to check the rule. They have to read it, interpret it and enforce it. If they don't then why exactly bother having it? Less rules (but still clear, and possibly with guidelines that while not strictly mandatory are /strongly recommended/) is easier to audit and enforce.
- ghostly_s 9y ago
  Good point, this is a great candidate for replacement with a more broadly-defined regulation, like the replacement regulation the white house also ann- oh, wait.
tyingq 9y ago
At a high level I see your frustration. But, for airlines, the US government has implemented lots of rules around pricing/fee displays, website accessibility, length of time on the tarmac, and tons more. So, I disagree, in this space, with the "every single time" part.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  I think OP was trying to express that "every single time" these rules are turned down, it is with the idea that any regulation harms the free market, which OP clearly explained is not the case. The fact that some rules did get implemented does not detract from that.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    I read it again, and that's not what I'm seeing.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      Obviously OP was exaggerating. If you are unwilling to see past the literal content to the meaning, then you certainly won't see what the rest of us see.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        Er, okay. My literal point is that the airlines have been regulated quite a few times into more transparent or consumer-friendly practices. There's probably lower hanging fruit out there at this point. Ever shop at Kohl's? Their pricing practices are pretty shady.
        thomastjeffery 9y ago
        That's changing the subject. I'm really not interested in where you are taking it, sorry.
asofusafb 9y ago
I thought the point of capitalism is to acquire capital at any cost. What you're talking about sounds like a patch to make it kinda work for other purposes.
- xoa 9y ago
  No. The Free Market is a specific distributed economic value apportionment tool, and like any tool it has requirements to operate efficiently, failure modes, and no inherent "goals". Amongst the key foundational requirements is Information Symmetry: in an ideal Free Market exchange, participants all have access to full & identical information. The more asymmetrical the information, the less efficient the exchange will be until you see full market failure. Now yes, in the real world there are certainly man areas where it can get complex (such as processing ability). But for a party that claims to champion the Free Market, things like information symmetry and cost internalization should be core goals. Information symmetry in particular is low hanging fruit, it should be both utterly uncontroversial and straight forward for businesses to implement as obviously they're keeping track of all of it internally anyway. It is explicitly and incontrovertibly anti-Free Market to support efforts to hide pricing information from any party to a transaction, full stop. It is a shame that the Republicans have so often been opposed to the Free Market in their actual actions and policies, whatever words they choose to say, given that the Democrats are also not all-weather friends to it. It's a very powerful tool that could be used for a lot more good then it is. I guess it doesn't help though that so few people in the general population have any idea what it actually is. The name probably doesn't help either: "Free" and "Market" are two of the most overloaded words in the English language, and the name might encourage people to imagine they know what it is through "common sense" in a way they wouldn't about something like quantum chromodynamics. Economics (along with probability and statistics) is sorely under taught in most public education curriculums I've read, despite being key to modern life.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    The free market and capitalism are different concepts.
    - 9y ago
codemac 9y ago
> The ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of capitalism is that market participants are supposed to trade based on equality of information. No, that's just what some books have been sold saying, modern neo-liberal capitalism operates exclusively in the opposite manner. There's a reason everyone likes service fees rather than membership fees - service fees are charged after the service has been rendered.
- smichel17 9y ago
  > everyone likes service fees [citation needed]
rconti 9y ago
Some regulations ARE burdensome and cause problems, possibly more harm than benefit. And perhaps this is silly and unnecessary. But now that it's already been implemented by every airline, I completely fail to see any value whatsoever in REMOVING it; if anything, that is an equally burdensome 'regulation'. (of course they don't HAVE to remove the notices, but if they don't, suddenly they're at an apparent price disadvantage compared to the competition that does).
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  > Some regulations ARE burdensome and cause problems, possibly more harm than benefit. Correct, but some people subscribe to the view that any and all regulation is bad
- ikeboy 9y ago
  It's a proposal i.e. has not been implemented yet
orblivion 9y ago
> equality of information It's based on information but not equality. In fact it's based on unequal information. Otherwise there would be no need for a market. The government could successfully plan everything. But this is a bit of an aside. I agree more transparency is always good, all else being equal. And I agree that undisclosed fees are borderline fraud.
- stepanhruda 9y ago
  You’re mixing up information and preferences.
  - orblivion 9y ago
    Well, knowledge of preferences is information. But also, some people know or at least understand things better than others. Those people (all else equal) are better entrepreneurs or investors.
microtherion 9y ago
Luigi Zingales rather aptly described this as pursuing "pro-Business" rather than "pro-Market" policies: https://promarket.org/donald-trumps-economic-policy-pro-business-not-pro-market/ https://promarket.org/donald-trumps-economic-policy-pro-busi...
vintageseltzer 9y ago
"Representatives" in the U.S. government no longer represent the citizens at all — they represent the lobbyists that pay for their votes. Logically, this behavior should result in the representatives being voted out of office. However, the two party system combined with the unbelievably high cost of running for office makes it nearly impossible for representatives who don't fall in line with the status quo to receive the campaign financing necessary to be elected. It's a rotten system and won't go away until campaign finance laws are reformed.
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  Absolving one’s self of responsibility won’t fix anything.
  - sincerely 9y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand what this has to do with the comment you're replying to. Could you explain?
    - dvtv75 9y ago
      I think his point was that democracy is the responsibility of the people being governed, so if you don't like it then it becomes your responsibility to do something about it. (Although I could be mis-interpreting.)
      - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
        Yep, spot on.
- gdulli 9y ago
  Except that "representatives" of one of the two parties is explicitly trying to help people here and the other isn't. So pushing the narrative of the two-party system being the problem doesn't apply here. There's been one election cycle since the current administration took office and that party was punished for its hostility to citizens and failure to deliver on its promises. So while the system has severe flaws, it's working as intended in this aspect.
userbinator 9y ago
Customers aren't entitled to know what something will cost before they buy it or in a way that enables comparisons. On the other hand, unless airlines force customers to sign NDAs on pricing or similar, they can and will compare prices and whatever else about the companies (like QoS) elsewhere. Word of mouth, now amplified through social media, can be very powerful too.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
> "How can we possibly expect a business whose entire model is the juggling of pricing and availability information for maximum profit to EVER be able to figure out how to display the costs for ancillary services at point of purchase?" 3rd party fare comparisons sites could learn these prices based on history and might provide that info to users for profit.

roenxi 9y ago

I dunno the nuances in America, but from an Australian perspective; this sort of rule is a great target for removal, it is too prescriptive. It would be better to have a rule 'costs must be clearly identified to consumers before the time of purchase' and then hit everyone with it. Companies have to comply with regulation. That literally means they need to have a person who audits that the rule is being complied with (amongst other compliance duties). If the rule is not being complied with, someone must fix it even if the airline ticket would be easily comparable without the rule. Management must put valuable time and attention into this process because they are obliged to comply with the rules. On the other hand, the government has to check the rule. They have to read it, interpret it and enforce it. If they don't then why exactly bother having it? Less rules (but still clear, and possibly with guidelines that while not strictly mandatory are /strongly recommended/) is easier to audit and enforce.

ghostly_s 9y ago
Good point, this is a great candidate for replacement with a more broadly-defined regulation, like the replacement regulation the white house also ann- oh, wait.

tyingq 9y ago

At a high level I see your frustration. But, for airlines, the US government has implemented lots of rules around pricing/fee displays, website accessibility, length of time on the tarmac, and tons more. So, I disagree, in this space, with the "every single time" part.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
I think OP was trying to express that "every single time" these rules are turned down, it is with the idea that any regulation harms the free market, which OP clearly explained is not the case. The fact that some rules did get implemented does not detract from that.
- tyingq 9y ago
  I read it again, and that's not what I'm seeing.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    Obviously OP was exaggerating. If you are unwilling to see past the literal content to the meaning, then you certainly won't see what the rest of us see.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      Er, okay. My literal point is that the airlines have been regulated quite a few times into more transparent or consumer-friendly practices. There's probably lower hanging fruit out there at this point. Ever shop at Kohl's? Their pricing practices are pretty shady.
      - thomastjeffery 9y ago
        That's changing the subject. I'm really not interested in where you are taking it, sorry.

asofusafb 9y ago

I thought the point of capitalism is to acquire capital at any cost. What you're talking about sounds like a patch to make it kinda work for other purposes.

xoa 9y ago
No. The Free Market is a specific distributed economic value apportionment tool, and like any tool it has requirements to operate efficiently, failure modes, and no inherent "goals". Amongst the key foundational requirements is Information Symmetry: in an ideal Free Market exchange, participants all have access to full & identical information. The more asymmetrical the information, the less efficient the exchange will be until you see full market failure. Now yes, in the real world there are certainly man areas where it can get complex (such as processing ability). But for a party that claims to champion the Free Market, things like information symmetry and cost internalization should be core goals. Information symmetry in particular is low hanging fruit, it should be both utterly uncontroversial and straight forward for businesses to implement as obviously they're keeping track of all of it internally anyway. It is explicitly and incontrovertibly anti-Free Market to support efforts to hide pricing information from any party to a transaction, full stop. It is a shame that the Republicans have so often been opposed to the Free Market in their actual actions and policies, whatever words they choose to say, given that the Democrats are also not all-weather friends to it. It's a very powerful tool that could be used for a lot more good then it is. I guess it doesn't help though that so few people in the general population have any idea what it actually is. The name probably doesn't help either: "Free" and "Market" are two of the most overloaded words in the English language, and the name might encourage people to imagine they know what it is through "common sense" in a way they wouldn't about something like quantum chromodynamics. Economics (along with probability and statistics) is sorely under taught in most public education curriculums I've read, despite being key to modern life.
- njarboe 9y ago
  The free market and capitalism are different concepts.
  - 9y ago

codemac 9y ago

> The ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of capitalism is that market participants are supposed to trade based on equality of information. No, that's just what some books have been sold saying, modern neo-liberal capitalism operates exclusively in the opposite manner. There's a reason everyone likes service fees rather than membership fees - service fees are charged after the service has been rendered.

smichel17 9y ago
> everyone likes service fees [citation needed]

rconti 9y ago

Some regulations ARE burdensome and cause problems, possibly more harm than benefit. And perhaps this is silly and unnecessary. But now that it's already been implemented by every airline, I completely fail to see any value whatsoever in REMOVING it; if anything, that is an equally burdensome 'regulation'. (of course they don't HAVE to remove the notices, but if they don't, suddenly they're at an apparent price disadvantage compared to the competition that does).

colejohnson66 9y ago
> Some regulations ARE burdensome and cause problems, possibly more harm than benefit. Correct, but some people subscribe to the view that any and all regulation is bad
ikeboy 9y ago
It's a proposal i.e. has not been implemented yet

orblivion 9y ago

> equality of information It's based on information but not equality. In fact it's based on unequal information. Otherwise there would be no need for a market. The government could successfully plan everything. But this is a bit of an aside. I agree more transparency is always good, all else being equal. And I agree that undisclosed fees are borderline fraud.

stepanhruda 9y ago
You’re mixing up information and preferences.
- orblivion 9y ago
  Well, knowledge of preferences is information. But also, some people know or at least understand things better than others. Those people (all else equal) are better entrepreneurs or investors.

microtherion 9y ago

Luigi Zingales rather aptly described this as pursuing "pro-Business" rather than "pro-Market" policies: https://promarket.org/donald-trumps-economic-policy-pro-business-not-pro-market/ https://promarket.org/donald-trumps-economic-policy-pro-busi...

vintageseltzer 9y ago

"Representatives" in the U.S. government no longer represent the citizens at all — they represent the lobbyists that pay for their votes. Logically, this behavior should result in the representatives being voted out of office. However, the two party system combined with the unbelievably high cost of running for office makes it nearly impossible for representatives who don't fall in line with the status quo to receive the campaign financing necessary to be elected. It's a rotten system and won't go away until campaign finance laws are reformed.

aaronbrethorst 9y ago
Absolving one’s self of responsibility won’t fix anything.
- sincerely 9y ago
  Sorry, I don't understand what this has to do with the comment you're replying to. Could you explain?
  - dvtv75 9y ago
    I think his point was that democracy is the responsibility of the people being governed, so if you don't like it then it becomes your responsibility to do something about it. (Although I could be mis-interpreting.)
    - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
      Yep, spot on.
gdulli 9y ago
Except that "representatives" of one of the two parties is explicitly trying to help people here and the other isn't. So pushing the narrative of the two-party system being the problem doesn't apply here. There's been one election cycle since the current administration took office and that party was punished for its hostility to citizens and failure to deliver on its promises. So while the system has severe flaws, it's working as intended in this aspect.

userbinator 9y ago

Customers aren't entitled to know what something will cost before they buy it or in a way that enables comparisons. On the other hand, unless airlines force customers to sign NDAs on pricing or similar, they can and will compare prices and whatever else about the companies (like QoS) elsewhere. Word of mouth, now amplified through social media, can be very powerful too.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago

> "How can we possibly expect a business whose entire model is the juggling of pricing and availability information for maximum profit to EVER be able to figure out how to display the costs for ancillary services at point of purchase?" 3rd party fare comparisons sites could learn these prices based on history and might provide that info to users for profit.