5 ms·

My worry with everything that the market should decide is that the market is terrible about deciding in markets where the barrier to entry is so high. When eve

My worry with everything that the market should decide is that the market is terrible about deciding in markets where the barrier to entry is so high. When every market participant starts charging a particular fee—one that is routinely hidden during the purchasing of a product or service, like baggage charges are—then there’s no realistic choice. It’s just like binding arbitration clauses. In many industries, like mobile phone service, you can’t “choose” a market participant that doesn’t have such a clause because all of them do. When all, or virtually all (because every airline doesn’t serve every trip pair, even from a given airport), airlines charge bag fees, there’s no choice to bring a bag without some form of up-front investment or having to endure the madness that is the overhead bin zoo. On the other hand, I don’t know that banning such fees is the way to go either. I suppose I’m mostly just griping that so many things are going to pay-per-everything and the large, advertised number has decreasingly little relevance to the final, actual cost.

didgeoridoo 8y ago
"The market deciding" doesn't necessarily mean new entrants. I'd mostly worry that adding too many restrictions prevents existing airlines from coming up with innovative programs & business models that benefit everyone by realigning incentives — getting to the gate earlier, checking even small bags rather than dragging a huge roller onboard and holding up the boarding process, etc. That said, these particular regulations don't seem particularly onerous.
zbentley 8y ago
> It’s just like binding arbitration clauses. In many industries, like mobile phone service, you can’t “choose” a market participant that doesn’t have such a clause because all of them do. I couldn't agree more. What you are describing is a cartel, or, at a later stage, a monopoly-ish entity. Markets "where the barrier to entry is so high" sometimes snap into existence as a function of what they do, but also sometimes appear simply because it's easier to collude than compete.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
TomMarius 8y ago
> It’s just like binding arbitration clauses. In many industries, like mobile phone service, you can’t “choose” a market participant that doesn’t have such a clause because all of them do. Isn't that because the industry is regulated and the government is the actual barrier to entry? Not saying it's wrong, but saying that the market isn't working when you listed something caused by regulation is unfair argument IMO.

didgeoridoo 8y ago

"The market deciding" doesn't necessarily mean new entrants. I'd mostly worry that adding too many restrictions prevents existing airlines from coming up with innovative programs & business models that benefit everyone by realigning incentives — getting to the gate earlier, checking even small bags rather than dragging a huge roller onboard and holding up the boarding process, etc. That said, these particular regulations don't seem particularly onerous.

zbentley 8y ago

> It’s just like binding arbitration clauses. In many industries, like mobile phone service, you can’t “choose” a market participant that doesn’t have such a clause because all of them do. I couldn't agree more. What you are describing is a cartel, or, at a later stage, a monopoly-ish entity. Markets "where the barrier to entry is so high" sometimes snap into existence as a function of what they do, but also sometimes appear simply because it's easier to collude than compete.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

TomMarius 8y ago

> It’s just like binding arbitration clauses. In many industries, like mobile phone service, you can’t “choose” a market participant that doesn’t have such a clause because all of them do. Isn't that because the industry is regulated and the government is the actual barrier to entry? Not saying it's wrong, but saying that the market isn't working when you listed something caused by regulation is unfair argument IMO.