4 ms·

> Qantas has raised prices to ensure the flight demand meets what it can supply. This is weasly language for "price gouging". There's literally no problem with

> Qantas has raised prices to ensure the flight demand meets what it can supply. This is weasly language for "price gouging". There's literally no problem with Qantas just selling the seats they had at reasonable prices and then saying, "sorry, no more seats available". Instead, you're trying to portray it as totally natural and just that they take advantage of any circumstances to squeeze as much out of their customers as possible. Market-think has perverted your worldview. The people tolerate markets because they generally serve the common good via innovation, competition and self organization. When the market deviates from that objective, like by price gouging to enrich a few at the expense of the public, it is right to criticize and correct it, not try to justify that the market is right and the common good is wrong.

Khaine 4y ago
That's what markets do, they co-ordinate supply and demand. If you can't raise prices to ease demand, what do you do? That extra money they are making, is then used to invest in more planes, and crew to staff more flights to serve more customers/ You can't have capitalism, without both sides of that coin. That's how markets work.
- naasking 4y ago
  > That extra money they are making, is then used to invest in more planes No, they're spent on stock buybacks to enrich shareholders, instead of invested back into their workforce or expanding capacity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udITRL9-t08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udITRL9-t08 I don't know why people keep believing in this myth, this reinvestment only happens when there's sufficient competition and no coordination, which is not the world we live in.
monero-xmr 4y ago
If there is 1000 units of something but demand for 5000 units, you increase the price until demand equals 1000 units. There is no conspiracy. This is fundamental economics. “Market-think” is about freedom. The alternative is “authoritarian-think” and that always ends in tears. Just start setting prices by government decree and see what happens.
- jay_kyburz 4y ago
  In the case where products can be profitably produced at a cheaper price, the people should band together, put aside the market system, and produce all 5000 units. More people are served. If its costs $100 to fly somebody from Sydney to Melbourne and Qantas is selling tickets for $1000, Australians should run an airline and sell tickets for $200. Governments should get into the business of keeping markets competitive.
  - makomk 4y ago
    Even in an ideal world where there's no fundamental difference in the cost of producing 1000 units or 5000, companies aren't going to be able to sell 5000 at the same price as they could 1000 when doing so exceeds their current capacity. Expanding that capacity means more staff and equipment, which costs money that has to be paid for somehow. It also takes time, which means that it cannot act as an immediate solution to the cost problem and also that there's substantial risk involved - by the time the extra capacity is there, the demand may not be. In order to justify taking on this risk there needs to be the expectation of substantially higher profits. Also, commercial airlines in particular are an industry with a history of over-optimistic expansion followed by cut-throat competition on pricing and then bankrupcy, and I'm pretty sure everyone in the industry knows this by now which is why there's not a huge rush to expand massively.
    - jay_kyburz 4y ago
      I personally think airline tickets need to be taxed heavily so that travelers pay for every ounce of carbon emitted to be captured.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >the people should band together, put aside the market system, and produce all 5000 units. More people are served. You just described a command economy, which have a poor track record historically.
    - jay_kyburz 4y ago
SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
Qantas is particularly scummy. They received over $2B in taxpayer money in bailouts and other concessions, stood down thousands of employees and did a $500M stock buyback.
- Khaine 4y ago
  Qantas has announced plans to create 8500 new jobs over the next decade to grow Australia’s biggest carrier now it’s back to reporting billion-dollar profits after COVID-19 read more https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-commits-to-hiring-thousands-unveils-new-engineering-academy-20230303-p5cp2n.html https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-commits-to-...
gruez 4y ago
>This is weasly language for "price gouging". There's literally no problem with Qantas just selling the seats they had at reasonable prices and then saying, "sorry, no more seats available". >Instead, you're trying to portray it as totally natural and just that they take advantage of any circumstances to squeeze as much out of their customers as possible. Would you not have done the same? Seeing that we're on HN, there's a good chance that you took advantage of the pandemic tech bonanza (ie. tech companies paying astronomical amounts for developers). If you were currently making $150k, and some tech company was offering you $250k, would you turn down that offer because you want to sell your labor "at reasonable prices"?
- naasking 4y ago
  No, I haven't done the same, for years in fact. But that's besides the point, because individuals are simply not in the same power bracket as powerful corporations that dominate whole markets, particularly when corporations have a proven track record of behaving unethically.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >No, I haven't done the same, for years in fact. Note this isn't limited to job hopping. If you saw the red hot job market and asked for a raise, that's arguably the same. >But that's besides the point, because individuals are simply not in the same power bracket as powerful corporations that dominate whole markets, particularly when corporations have a proven track record of behaving unethically. What are you trying to say here? That corporations are unethical and as a result shouldn't be conferred the right to raise prices? Or that price rises in absence of increased costs doesn't count as price gouging, unless you also have "power"?

Khaine 4y ago

That's what markets do, they co-ordinate supply and demand. If you can't raise prices to ease demand, what do you do? That extra money they are making, is then used to invest in more planes, and crew to staff more flights to serve more customers/ You can't have capitalism, without both sides of that coin. That's how markets work.

naasking 4y ago
> That extra money they are making, is then used to invest in more planes No, they're spent on stock buybacks to enrich shareholders, instead of invested back into their workforce or expanding capacity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udITRL9-t08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udITRL9-t08 I don't know why people keep believing in this myth, this reinvestment only happens when there's sufficient competition and no coordination, which is not the world we live in.

monero-xmr 4y ago

If there is 1000 units of something but demand for 5000 units, you increase the price until demand equals 1000 units. There is no conspiracy. This is fundamental economics. “Market-think” is about freedom. The alternative is “authoritarian-think” and that always ends in tears. Just start setting prices by government decree and see what happens.

jay_kyburz 4y ago
In the case where products can be profitably produced at a cheaper price, the people should band together, put aside the market system, and produce all 5000 units. More people are served. If its costs $100 to fly somebody from Sydney to Melbourne and Qantas is selling tickets for $1000, Australians should run an airline and sell tickets for $200. Governments should get into the business of keeping markets competitive.
- makomk 4y ago
  Even in an ideal world where there's no fundamental difference in the cost of producing 1000 units or 5000, companies aren't going to be able to sell 5000 at the same price as they could 1000 when doing so exceeds their current capacity. Expanding that capacity means more staff and equipment, which costs money that has to be paid for somehow. It also takes time, which means that it cannot act as an immediate solution to the cost problem and also that there's substantial risk involved - by the time the extra capacity is there, the demand may not be. In order to justify taking on this risk there needs to be the expectation of substantially higher profits. Also, commercial airlines in particular are an industry with a history of over-optimistic expansion followed by cut-throat competition on pricing and then bankrupcy, and I'm pretty sure everyone in the industry knows this by now which is why there's not a huge rush to expand massively.
  - jay_kyburz 4y ago
    I personally think airline tickets need to be taxed heavily so that travelers pay for every ounce of carbon emitted to be captured.
- gruez 4y ago
  >the people should band together, put aside the market system, and produce all 5000 units. More people are served. You just described a command economy, which have a poor track record historically.
  - jay_kyburz 4y ago

SturgeonsLaw 4y ago

Qantas is particularly scummy. They received over $2B in taxpayer money in bailouts and other concessions, stood down thousands of employees and did a $500M stock buyback.

Khaine 4y ago
Qantas has announced plans to create 8500 new jobs over the next decade to grow Australia’s biggest carrier now it’s back to reporting billion-dollar profits after COVID-19 read more https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-commits-to-hiring-thousands-unveils-new-engineering-academy-20230303-p5cp2n.html https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-commits-to-...

gruez 4y ago

>This is weasly language for "price gouging". There's literally no problem with Qantas just selling the seats they had at reasonable prices and then saying, "sorry, no more seats available". >Instead, you're trying to portray it as totally natural and just that they take advantage of any circumstances to squeeze as much out of their customers as possible. Would you not have done the same? Seeing that we're on HN, there's a good chance that you took advantage of the pandemic tech bonanza (ie. tech companies paying astronomical amounts for developers). If you were currently making $150k, and some tech company was offering you $250k, would you turn down that offer because you want to sell your labor "at reasonable prices"?

naasking 4y ago
No, I haven't done the same, for years in fact. But that's besides the point, because individuals are simply not in the same power bracket as powerful corporations that dominate whole markets, particularly when corporations have a proven track record of behaving unethically.
- gruez 4y ago
  >No, I haven't done the same, for years in fact. Note this isn't limited to job hopping. If you saw the red hot job market and asked for a raise, that's arguably the same. >But that's besides the point, because individuals are simply not in the same power bracket as powerful corporations that dominate whole markets, particularly when corporations have a proven track record of behaving unethically. What are you trying to say here? That corporations are unethical and as a result shouldn't be conferred the right to raise prices? Or that price rises in absence of increased costs doesn't count as price gouging, unless you also have "power"?