3 ms·

> When speaking internally to employees, American Airlines has explained their lobbying against JSX as a competitive response to the carrier which offers consum

by notamy 3y ago

> When speaking internally to employees, American Airlines has explained their lobbying against JSX as a competitive response to the carrier which offers consumers a more compelling product. That is... painful to read. "Lobby the government to make a competitor's life harder" just feels so absurd when they could (and should) compete on the actual offering.

kragen 3y ago
regulatory capture is of course harmful to public welfare, but it's also extremely profitable, so wherever you find regulation, you'll find that regulatory capture is a high priority for the regulated businesses they're almost always successful because they both know more and care more about the field being regulated than anyone else does
- dv_dt 3y ago
  And if you find no regulation in areas where consumers are being harmed it can often be even worse. Personally I don’t think regulatory capture is an argument against regulations - but perhaps I’m reading too much into the statement.
  - kragen 3y ago
    your claim seems to be that merchants can harm consumers more without the government's help than with the government's help; that is, that when the government attempts to help merchants harm consumers, the government's help is not only ineffective but actually counterproductive, instead having a protective effect stated thus, the thesis seems both implausible on its face and empirically falsified by abundant historical evidence; not only does history contain such egregious counterexamples as the great leap forward, chernobyl, the opium war, and the congo free state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#/media/File:Nsala_of_Wala_in_Congo_looks_at_the_severed_hand_and_foot_of_his_five-year_old_daughter,_1904.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#/media/File:N... but also abuses less serious in degree but far more numerous and long-lasting, such as the british raj's regulation of the consumers of thread and yarn https://www.sgbgatelier.com/world/2019/11/21/5-ways-imperial-britain-crippled-indian-handlooms https://www.sgbgatelier.com/world/2019/11/21/5-ways-imperial..., the predatory pricing in mining companies' so-called company stores, and the recent intentional addition of allergens to many food products in the usa so either you have not put much thought into your position or i have sorely misunderstood your intent
    - dv_dt 3y ago
      Regulation in governmental policy is not a mathematical theory that can be discarded with a single undesirable result. It's a complex human interaction that isn't a matter of regulate all the things or none of the things. Recently a HN post reposted a discussion that solving a problem isn't rewarded, and successful regulation suffers that exact problem. Regulation is so widely successful in so many areas, people form these naive beliefs that we can just eliminate it all and we would be fine. There are so many examples of it working fine in society in completely invisible ways because it's working. This is not to say that all regulations are perfect - more that we should be discussing how to identify failures and form working and improved regulations not discussing a frankly silly outright removal of all regulations. Regulatory capture is certainly one of the things to try to prevent.
      - kragen 3y ago
        you, too, seem to be arguing against a strawman position that nobody actually holds or could plausibly hold: that 'regulation in governmental policy is a mathematical theory' by contrast, i was arguing against the position you actually stated, 'if you find no regulation in areas where consumers are being harmed it can often be even worse'. there is no historical case with no regulation in areas where consumers are being harmed that is 'even worse' than the great leap forward or the congo free state. you don't seem to be attempting to defend that position, or to clarify it; i suppose that means you agree that you were incorrect? you seem to be attempting to distract people by posting a bunch of wishful-thinking nonsense that isn't relevant to the issue we were discussing, thus changing the subject. while that may be a good rhetorical strategy for rallying a political base, it's a terrible way to figure out the truth of a complex matter
    - Viliam1234 3y ago
      The fact that you can choose big examples of government-organized harm doesn't mean that there was not also a lot of non-government-organized harm. Sometimes the latter is more difficult to count precisely because it is more distributed.
      - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lazide 3y ago
Competing on the offering is hard (REALLY hard when it comes to airlines). Lobbying the gov't is pretty easy, all things considered.

by notamy 3y ago

kragen 3y ago

regulatory capture is of course harmful to public welfare, but it's also extremely profitable, so wherever you find regulation, you'll find that regulatory capture is a high priority for the regulated businesses they're almost always successful because they both know more and care more about the field being regulated than anyone else does

dv_dt 3y ago
And if you find no regulation in areas where consumers are being harmed it can often be even worse. Personally I don’t think regulatory capture is an argument against regulations - but perhaps I’m reading too much into the statement.
- kragen 3y ago
  your claim seems to be that merchants can harm consumers more without the government's help than with the government's help; that is, that when the government attempts to help merchants harm consumers, the government's help is not only ineffective but actually counterproductive, instead having a protective effect stated thus, the thesis seems both implausible on its face and empirically falsified by abundant historical evidence; not only does history contain such egregious counterexamples as the great leap forward, chernobyl, the opium war, and the congo free state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#/media/File:Nsala_of_Wala_in_Congo_looks_at_the_severed_hand_and_foot_of_his_five-year_old_daughter,_1904.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#/media/File:N... but also abuses less serious in degree but far more numerous and long-lasting, such as the british raj's regulation of the consumers of thread and yarn https://www.sgbgatelier.com/world/2019/11/21/5-ways-imperial-britain-crippled-indian-handlooms https://www.sgbgatelier.com/world/2019/11/21/5-ways-imperial..., the predatory pricing in mining companies' so-called company stores, and the recent intentional addition of allergens to many food products in the usa so either you have not put much thought into your position or i have sorely misunderstood your intent
  - dv_dt 3y ago
    Regulation in governmental policy is not a mathematical theory that can be discarded with a single undesirable result. It's a complex human interaction that isn't a matter of regulate all the things or none of the things. Recently a HN post reposted a discussion that solving a problem isn't rewarded, and successful regulation suffers that exact problem. Regulation is so widely successful in so many areas, people form these naive beliefs that we can just eliminate it all and we would be fine. There are so many examples of it working fine in society in completely invisible ways because it's working. This is not to say that all regulations are perfect - more that we should be discussing how to identify failures and form working and improved regulations not discussing a frankly silly outright removal of all regulations. Regulatory capture is certainly one of the things to try to prevent.
    - kragen 3y ago
      you, too, seem to be arguing against a strawman position that nobody actually holds or could plausibly hold: that 'regulation in governmental policy is a mathematical theory' by contrast, i was arguing against the position you actually stated, 'if you find no regulation in areas where consumers are being harmed it can often be even worse'. there is no historical case with no regulation in areas where consumers are being harmed that is 'even worse' than the great leap forward or the congo free state. you don't seem to be attempting to defend that position, or to clarify it; i suppose that means you agree that you were incorrect? you seem to be attempting to distract people by posting a bunch of wishful-thinking nonsense that isn't relevant to the issue we were discussing, thus changing the subject. while that may be a good rhetorical strategy for rallying a political base, it's a terrible way to figure out the truth of a complex matter
  - Viliam1234 3y ago
    The fact that you can choose big examples of government-organized harm doesn't mean that there was not also a lot of non-government-organized harm. Sometimes the latter is more difficult to count precisely because it is more distributed.
    - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lazide 3y ago

Competing on the offering is hard (REALLY hard when it comes to airlines). Lobbying the gov't is pretty easy, all things considered.