2 ms·

I didn't post this thing to discuss about the merits of the Laffer curve etc. as a matter of fact I didn't even read it. We all know that airplane travel is th

I didn't post this thing to discuss about the merits of the Laffer curve etc. as a matter of fact I didn't even read it. We all know that airplane travel is the safest means of transportation and that a plane is among the safest space a human can occupy period. Intuitively we all know that deaths could be reduced elsewhere in society (not necessarily transportation) by taking some IQ brain power and computing power that is in heavy needed to reach the 5th 9 after the comma to make planes 99,99999% safe and diverting elsewhere Geez man zoom out

bediger4000 9mo ago
is as a matter of fact I didn't even read it. You're reaping what you sowed. The article is propaganda, and can be dismissed as such because it uses the trappings of economics, but not the numbers, to try to justify a solely ideological point. That is, they're lying. Since this is from the Libertarian Cato Institute, I guess we knew that anyway. Don't know what I expected from them.
- JumpinJack_Cash 9mo ago
  The article is the first thing that showed up on Google and wasn't too keen on browsing the obscure substacks So now that we got that out of the way, please stop acting robotic and give me your intuition on the topic not the one of the guy who has to win an argument against CATO
  - bediger4000 9mo ago
    I used to be a stress analyst at aerospace companies. Like every cog in that kind of big machine, I had almost no effect on the result. I did some very preliminary analysis on the candidate airframe that became the MD-11. My intuition is that Cato is wrong on this point. Spending less on air safety would make the currently-conspiratorial US public afraid of flying, particularly if 2 more 737-MAX type incidents happened. Air travel would drop off drastically, and all the travel that was worth it, would be done by automobile. Mass transit airplanes are absolutely not buses or cars, or even trains. There's very, very few of them made. There are only 2 ways to get to safe quality machines. One is by statistical methods and constant incremental improvement, like Toyota, and to a lesser extent, other car companies do. This requires a lot of production, and a culture of feedback from in the field to the designers to the factory. The second is to have high standards and inspect, verify and qualify everything. Since transport aircraft production is so low, there's really no possibility for feedback like Toyota or Honda uses. We're stuck with regulation, or we don't have an air travel system. Did you read this far, or were you "not too keen" on finishing a longer post?
    - JumpinJack_Cash 9mo ago
      I did read it and I still think that planes killing 0 people in a good year on a global basis means that such effort is subtracted from other parts of society which ultimately plays so loose that kills people in droves. Just to mention the TSA you have to face in airports vs. absolutely fuck all lack of security while boarding trains and subway trains where you could be carrying a nuke or an AK47 in your suitcase and nobody checks a damn thing nor the ID etc. Plus the train arrives right in the city center where an ill intentioned individual could do maximum damage But not limiting to transportation means just observing how loose is safety in our cities where death is always around the corner (from accidental kinetic impact or human assault) > > One is by statistical methods and constant incremental improvement, It's the only game in town. We did that for ships, trains, automobiles and yes even planes, they aren't special. The lessons learned won't disappear. > > Spending less on air safety would make the currently-conspiratorial US public afraid of flying, particularly if 2 more 737-MAX type incidents happened. Air travel would drop off drastically, and all the travel that was worth it, would be done by automobile. This is the crux of it all, it's in fact a psychological problem not factual. The same that affects nuclear reactors. If 2 737Max go down in 2026 airplanes would still be many orders of magnitude on a casualty per mile traveled on a unit of time basis, especially when compared against automobiles.

bediger4000 9mo ago

is as a matter of fact I didn't even read it. You're reaping what you sowed. The article is propaganda, and can be dismissed as such because it uses the trappings of economics, but not the numbers, to try to justify a solely ideological point. That is, they're lying. Since this is from the Libertarian Cato Institute, I guess we knew that anyway. Don't know what I expected from them.

JumpinJack_Cash 9mo ago
The article is the first thing that showed up on Google and wasn't too keen on browsing the obscure substacks So now that we got that out of the way, please stop acting robotic and give me your intuition on the topic not the one of the guy who has to win an argument against CATO
- bediger4000 9mo ago
  I used to be a stress analyst at aerospace companies. Like every cog in that kind of big machine, I had almost no effect on the result. I did some very preliminary analysis on the candidate airframe that became the MD-11. My intuition is that Cato is wrong on this point. Spending less on air safety would make the currently-conspiratorial US public afraid of flying, particularly if 2 more 737-MAX type incidents happened. Air travel would drop off drastically, and all the travel that was worth it, would be done by automobile. Mass transit airplanes are absolutely not buses or cars, or even trains. There's very, very few of them made. There are only 2 ways to get to safe quality machines. One is by statistical methods and constant incremental improvement, like Toyota, and to a lesser extent, other car companies do. This requires a lot of production, and a culture of feedback from in the field to the designers to the factory. The second is to have high standards and inspect, verify and qualify everything. Since transport aircraft production is so low, there's really no possibility for feedback like Toyota or Honda uses. We're stuck with regulation, or we don't have an air travel system. Did you read this far, or were you "not too keen" on finishing a longer post?
  - JumpinJack_Cash 9mo ago
    I did read it and I still think that planes killing 0 people in a good year on a global basis means that such effort is subtracted from other parts of society which ultimately plays so loose that kills people in droves. Just to mention the TSA you have to face in airports vs. absolutely fuck all lack of security while boarding trains and subway trains where you could be carrying a nuke or an AK47 in your suitcase and nobody checks a damn thing nor the ID etc. Plus the train arrives right in the city center where an ill intentioned individual could do maximum damage But not limiting to transportation means just observing how loose is safety in our cities where death is always around the corner (from accidental kinetic impact or human assault) > > One is by statistical methods and constant incremental improvement, It's the only game in town. We did that for ships, trains, automobiles and yes even planes, they aren't special. The lessons learned won't disappear. > > Spending less on air safety would make the currently-conspiratorial US public afraid of flying, particularly if 2 more 737-MAX type incidents happened. Air travel would drop off drastically, and all the travel that was worth it, would be done by automobile. This is the crux of it all, it's in fact a psychological problem not factual. The same that affects nuclear reactors. If 2 737Max go down in 2026 airplanes would still be many orders of magnitude on a casualty per mile traveled on a unit of time basis, especially when compared against automobiles.