[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 23, 2017 - 9:18pm
 
What Are You Grateful For? - haresfur - Apr 23, 2017 - 8:59pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - kurtster - Apr 23, 2017 - 7:15pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - water - Apr 23, 2017 - 7:13pm
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - Coaxial - Apr 23, 2017 - 6:07pm
 
Back to the 00's - rhahl - Apr 23, 2017 - 6:01pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Apr 23, 2017 - 5:34pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Apr 23, 2017 - 5:06pm
 
Name My Band - haresfur - Apr 23, 2017 - 4:55pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Alexandra - Apr 23, 2017 - 4:53pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - Lazy8 - Apr 23, 2017 - 4:37pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Skydog - Apr 23, 2017 - 4:31pm
 
Regarding dogs - Antigone - Apr 23, 2017 - 4:27pm
 
Photos you haven't taken of yourself - Antigone - Apr 23, 2017 - 3:07pm
 
Having PSD problems? - Red_Dragon - Apr 23, 2017 - 12:46pm
 
how do you feel right now? - SeriousLee - Apr 23, 2017 - 12:33pm
 
NEED A COMPUTER GEEK! - kurtster - Apr 23, 2017 - 12:07pm
 
caching in iphone/ipad app - gtufano - Apr 23, 2017 - 11:03am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - kurtster - Apr 23, 2017 - 9:05am
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Apr 23, 2017 - 8:17am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Apr 23, 2017 - 7:56am
 
HALF A WORLD - Red_Dragon - Apr 23, 2017 - 7:34am
 
You're Welcome, OV - oldviolin - Apr 23, 2017 - 7:30am
 
Celebrity Deaths - SeriousLee - Apr 23, 2017 - 7:27am
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Apr 23, 2017 - 7:22am
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - Red_Dragon - Apr 23, 2017 - 5:50am
 
Live Music - rhahl - Apr 22, 2017 - 4:18pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - SeriousLee - Apr 22, 2017 - 2:46pm
 
Beer - SeriousLee - Apr 22, 2017 - 11:41am
 
Itunes music connection? - FrankDebbieCote - Apr 22, 2017 - 8:43am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - oldviolin - Apr 22, 2017 - 7:43am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Apr 22, 2017 - 7:38am
 
RPeep News You Should Know - miamizsun - Apr 22, 2017 - 7:25am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Apr 22, 2017 - 7:24am
 
What Did You See Today? - haresfur - Apr 22, 2017 - 7:02am
 
Signs of Spring - Skydog - Apr 22, 2017 - 5:39am
 
RP app - info without playing stream - BillG - Apr 22, 2017 - 4:54am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - fractalv - Apr 21, 2017 - 7:07pm
 
High(er) Fidelity for RP - kurtster - Apr 21, 2017 - 5:31pm
 
Agricultural subsidies -- thoughts - westslope - Apr 21, 2017 - 2:10pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - Antigone - Apr 21, 2017 - 2:02pm
 
Best Song Comments. - Proclivities - Apr 21, 2017 - 1:38pm
 
Testing your Metal? - SeriousLee - Apr 21, 2017 - 12:34pm
 
Waste Time At Work - Proclivities - Apr 21, 2017 - 9:20am
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - Proclivities - Apr 21, 2017 - 8:56am
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - ptooey - Apr 21, 2017 - 8:11am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Apr 21, 2017 - 6:22am
 
Poetry Forum - Antigone - Apr 21, 2017 - 4:53am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - ColdMiser - Apr 21, 2017 - 3:20am
 
RightWingNutZ - kcar - Apr 21, 2017 - 1:14am
 
Trump - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 20, 2017 - 10:35pm
 
Health Care - kcar - Apr 20, 2017 - 7:21pm
 
Hillary Clinton - Lazy8 - Apr 20, 2017 - 3:42pm
 
OUR CATS!! - miamizsun - Apr 20, 2017 - 12:20pm
 
Fox Spews - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 20, 2017 - 11:12am
 
What's on YOUR PSD right now ? - Proclivities - Apr 20, 2017 - 11:07am
 
Silly Celebrity News & Non-events - Proclivities - Apr 20, 2017 - 10:20am
 
Make Lily34 Laugh - lily34 - Apr 20, 2017 - 10:17am
 
Help identifying an album... - Proclivities - Apr 20, 2017 - 9:42am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - lily34 - Apr 20, 2017 - 8:43am
 
::odd but intriguing:: - Faithful_Fool - Apr 20, 2017 - 8:19am
 
Environment - islander - Apr 20, 2017 - 8:16am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Apr 20, 2017 - 7:36am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Apr 20, 2017 - 6:45am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - Antigone - Apr 20, 2017 - 6:24am
 
Blogs you want to share - Red_Dragon - Apr 20, 2017 - 5:00am
 
Show us your NEW _______________!!!! - KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 19, 2017 - 9:38pm
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 19, 2017 - 9:35pm
 
Strange & Cool Music - miamizsun - Apr 19, 2017 - 7:24pm
 
Geeky Jokes - haresfur - Apr 19, 2017 - 5:16pm
 
Earworm - Proclivities - Apr 19, 2017 - 12:35pm
 
honk if you think manbird and OV are one and the same ent... - oldviolin - Apr 19, 2017 - 9:39am
 
It seemed like a good idea at the time - Red_Dragon - Apr 19, 2017 - 9:13am
 
The War On Drugs = Fail - Red_Dragon - Apr 19, 2017 - 8:56am
 
Small-town news - cc_rider - Apr 19, 2017 - 8:05am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 157, 158, 159  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 12:31pm

 black321 wrote:
So in addition to increased capital investments (being on a few different campuses the last couple years, I have seen soft evidence of this given the projects underway), we have rising overhead/admin costs...which it seems adds little value to the education...which is further exasperated by rising costs for benefits (pensions and health care).  Looking at public k-12 schools in my area, the benefit part of the equation eats about 30% of the budget. 

So we have rising capital and benefit costs (healthcare)...along with more paper pushing suits.  Except for the benefit bit, the other two could/should be easy fixes. 

In NY out of state tuition is still a bargain at about $16k.  My son goes to Illinois (out of state) where tuition is about $35k..and the labor for most of his classes is already spread pretty thin (large lecture halls). 

Once you have arena-sized lecture halls and office hours held entirely by poorly-paid grad students it's hard to find cost savings in direct labor (teaching). It's all overhead. Which keeps growing.

And—the root of the problem—parents and students keep paying for it, so it keeps happening.
black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 12:20pm

 miamizsun wrote:

"Before we can find any solution, it is important to understand the root cause of the rising prices. Professor Lin finds that increased demand—fueled by improved job prospects for graduates and increased government assistance—is to blame for soaring tuition prices. Knowing the cause should inform our search for a solution."

politically if you want more of something subsidize it

The Student Debt Crisis Is the Predictable Consequence of Subsidies



National Bureau of Economic Research has some info on that as well




 
but over the past 30 years, it seems the amount of subsidies has declined?  For the average student, they only qualify for about $6k in "subsidized" loans...with the subsidy consisting of a deferral on when payments start (after graduation).  The interest rates on these loans aren't particularly attractive.  Even the full subsidies for low income families have declined...while prices continued to climb. 

Still, the demand has remained strong. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 11:27am

 black321 wrote:

So this video is basically arguing that due to rising demand, schools are raising prices because they can, and using that cash windfall to invest in new facilities/capital investments....instead using the higher demand/revenue to leverage their costs, which would allow them to lower their tuition rates.  Possible, but I'd be interested seeing any real evidence/data behind this theory.  If its true, then we have a very simple fix to our tuition issue.  Highlight the issue and get colleges to return to a normal rate of capital investments.

p.s., at the state level, a simple solution would be to curb out of state enrollment, or at least shift more of the tuition burden to those students.
 
"Before we can find any solution, it is important to understand the root cause of the rising prices. Professor Lin finds that increased demand—fueled by improved job prospects for graduates and increased government assistance—is to blame for soaring tuition prices. Knowing the cause should inform our search for a solution."

politically if you want more of something subsidize it

The Student Debt Crisis Is the Predictable Consequence of Subsidies



National Bureau of Economic Research has some info on that as well





black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 11:18am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 black321 wrote:
So this video is basically arguing that due to rising demand, schools are raising prices because they can, and using that cash windfall to invest in new facilities/capital investments....instead using the higher demand/revenue to leverage their costs, which would allow them to lower their tuition rates.  Possible, but I'd be interested seeing any real evidence/data behind this theory.  If its true, then we have a very simple fix to our tuition issue.  Highlight the issue and get colleges to return to a normal rate of capital investments.

p.s., at the state level, a simple solution would be to curb out of state enrollment, or at least shift more of the tuition burden to those students.

At least in my state out-of-state students pay full freight, locals get subsidized, and foreign students pay a premium. They work pretty hard to attract foreign students.

It's not that administrators raise prices just because they can, the effect is subtler than that—raising prices doesn't reduce demand, so the disincentive disappears. It becomes the first choice to balance the books rather than the last. Ironically state schools have had better fiscal discipline because in the absence of economic restraints on increasing prices political restraints act. Most state schools have to at least ask a board of governors (if not the lege) to raise tuition.

One of the problems with the traditional model of education is that it's driven to a large degree by labor costs. In other industries when labor gets expensive you automate. Leverage that labor over more units to keep the cost down, whether that means using combines instead of mowing with scythes and threshing or giving managers PCs to type their own memos instead of hiring secretaries. In education you still have one prof and a roomful of students.

Added on top of that you have the explosive growth in the numbers of administrators. We see this in public as well as private schools; a higher and higher percentage of the people who work there don't teach, and when enrollment drops (as it did, drastically, at one of my states schools recently) the staff they cut is teaching staff rather than overhead. Gotta have a Title IX Compliance Officer and someone to run the fitness center even if you only have four student left in the department.

 
So in addition to increased capital investments (being on a few different campuses the last couple years, I have seen soft evidence of this given the projects underway), we have rising overhead/admin costs...which it seems adds little value to the education...which is further exasperated by rising costs for benefits (pensions and health care).  Looking at public k-12 schools in my area, the benefit part of the equation eats about 30% of the budget. 

So we have rising capital and benefit costs (healthcare)...along with more paper pushing suits.  Except for the benefit bit, the other two could/should be easy fixes. 

In NY out of state tuition is still a bargain at about $16k.  My son goes to Illinois (out of state) where tuition is about $35k..and the labor for most of his classes is already spread pretty thin (large lecture halls). 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 10:55am

 black321 wrote:
So this video is basically arguing that due to rising demand, schools are raising prices because they can, and using that cash windfall to invest in new facilities/capital investments....instead using the higher demand/revenue to leverage their costs, which would allow them to lower their tuition rates.  Possible, but I'd be interested seeing any real evidence/data behind this theory.  If its true, then we have a very simple fix to our tuition issue.  Highlight the issue and get colleges to return to a normal rate of capital investments.

p.s., at the state level, a simple solution would be to curb out of state enrollment, or at least shift more of the tuition burden to those students.

At least in my state out-of-state students pay full freight, locals get subsidized, and foreign students pay a premium. They work pretty hard to attract foreign students.

It's not that administrators raise prices just because they can, the effect is subtler than that—raising prices doesn't reduce demand, so the disincentive disappears. It becomes the first choice to balance the books rather than the last. Ironically state schools have had better fiscal discipline because in the absence of economic restraints on increasing prices political restraints act. Most state schools have to at least ask a board of governors (if not the lege) to raise tuition.

One of the problems with the traditional model of education is that it's driven to a large degree by labor costs. In other industries when labor gets expensive you automate. Leverage that labor over more units to keep the cost down, whether that means using combines instead of mowing with scythes and threshing or giving managers PCs to type their own memos instead of hiring secretaries. In education you still have one prof and a roomful of students.

Added on top of that you have the explosive growth in the numbers of administrators. We see this in public as well as private schools; a higher and higher percentage of the people who work there don't teach, and when enrollment drops (as it did, drastically, at one of my states schools recently) the staff they cut is teaching staff rather than overhead. Gotta have a Title IX Compliance Officer and someone to run the fitness center even if you only have four student left in the department.
black321
See For Yourself
black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Capricorn
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Apr 11, 2017 - 10:26am

 miamizsun wrote:

there are a few short videos over at learn liberty that may explain this


 
So this video is basically arguing that due to rising demand, schools are raising prices because they can, and using that cash windfall to invest in new facilities/capital investments....instead using the higher demand/revenue to leverage their costs, which would allow them to lower their tuition rates.  Possible, but I'd be interested seeing any real evidence/data behind this theory.  If its true, then we have a very simple fix to our tuition issue.  Highlight the issue and get colleges to return to a normal rate of capital investments.

p.s., at the state level, a simple solution would be to curb out of state enrollment, or at least shift more of the tuition burden to those students.


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 8, 2017 - 9:16pm

 aflanigan wrote:
If your premise is specifically limited to cost and quality in telecom services and has no applicability to any other type of market, it's not very valuable in the service of promoting the libertarian view of the world, I would say.

Bottom line is you're not convinced by my small collection of data points, and I'm not thoroughly convinced by yours.

I would say that means it's time for another weekend!

 {#Cheers}

Well, that's the topic (not premise) we were discussing. Well, I was discussing. You seem to be doing anything you can to avoid discussing it. I'm not convinced you're actually reading any of this before responding, and baffled why anyone else would be.

So yeah, weekend. Mine's going pretty well, hope yours is likewise.
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 2:08pm

If your premise is specifically limited to cost and quality in telecom services and has no applicability to any other type of market, it's not very valuable in the service of promoting the libertarian view of the world, I would say.

Bottom line is you're not convinced by my small collection of data points, and I'm not thoroughly convinced by yours.

I would say that means it's time for another weekend!

 {#Cheers}
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 12:48pm

 aflanigan wrote:
How about we look at the change in cost of various services/products, both regulated (toys, cars, cell phone) and relatively unregulated (textbooks, college tuition), compared to inflation to determine whether regulation prevents consumers from benefiting from competition.

 

At risk of repeating myself (because I'm repeating myself) you haven't touched the argument.

Yes, there are a number of factors that can affect prices, but when you hold those the same between two test samples you see the effect of the things that are different between the two samples.

Are you arguing that there are other differences (technology, population, climate...) between Denmark and the US that explain the difference in cost and quality of internet services? Then say so, and name those differences.

You could also point to counterexamples: places were deregulating telecom markets produced worse (rather than better) results.

Look, I'm trying to be generous here—offering you ways to falsify my premise. That isn't the only approach, of course; you could argue that despite worse outcome by any measurable metric there are other compelling reasons to favor a regulatory environment like ours. National security. Feng shui. Fewer annoying ringtones. Hell, make your own argument—but at least address the topic.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 11:55am

 aflanigan wrote:

How about we look at the change in cost of various services/products, both regulated (toys, cars, cell phone) and relatively unregulated (textbooks, college tuition), compared to inflation to determine whether regulation prevents consumers from benefiting from competition.

 

 
there are a few short videos over at learn liberty that may explain this



aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Apr 7, 2017 - 11:17am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 aflanigan wrote:
The original post was yours. Please explain how one cherry picked nonanalogous example is a sound basis for determining policy.

I tried to make sense of your argument that the example wasn't analogous and drew a blank. Repeating your claim doesn't justify it.

"Cherry picked" implies that there are counterexamples that I ignored. Name them.

 
How about we look at the change in cost of various services/products, both regulated (toys, cars, cell phone) and relatively unregulated (textbooks, college tuition), compared to inflation to determine whether regulation prevents consumers from benefiting from competition.

 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 3:40pm

 aflanigan wrote:
The original post was yours. Please explain how one cherry picked nonanalogous example is a sound basis for determining policy.

I tried to make sense of your argument that the example wasn't analogous and drew a blank. Repeating your claim doesn't justify it.

"Cherry picked" implies that there are counterexamples that I ignored. Name them.
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 3:03pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 aflanigan wrote:
The other thing going on here is that L8 is pointing to a single example of dubious relevancy with respect to the US as a basis for setting policy. Denmark, if I'm not mistaken, is rather different from the US in that they don't have states with significant ruling autonomy. Their regions have limited authority to make laws, and I suspect economic policy and other issues relevant to businesses are decided solely at the national level. 

If I were offering this kind of argument (cherry picked example based on apples to oranges comparison), he'd probably be all over me for it, understandably so. 

So an example of near-total deregulation working splendidly isn't relevant because...in the US states and municipalities can still regulate?

Please elaborate. Explain why that justifies a national regulatory structure.

And yes, I realize that foreign countries are foreign. Otherwise they'd be us. But if we deregulated something in the US that still wouldn't be a good example because mumble mumble.

 
The original post was yours. Please explain how one cherry picked nonanalogous example is a sound basis for determining policy.
steeler
About three bricks shy of a load
steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 2:07pm

 miamizsun wrote:

???

our legal system has incarcerated a shyte ton of people

arguably more than any other country 



Except for the tiny country of the Seychelles, the United States tops the list of countries by incarceration rate.

Also see Harvey Silverglate's work.

I'd suggest three felonies a day.

Regards

 
Note that I did not say that all laws are good.  Nor  am I making the argument that we have the right number of laws. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 1:54pm

 steeler wrote:

Yes. Exactly. 

By definition, all laws, including regulations, serve as restrictions. When someone argues that a law is restrictive of someone's freedom, that, of course, is true, and it should go without saying.  It is the proverbial nature of the beast. The question becomes whether those restrictions, the infringements on someone's freedom,. are too burdensome and the cost of those burdens are not outweighed by the gains..  It is a cost-benefit analysis. And it cannot always be weighed just in terms of dollars and cents.  So, it can become difficult to do the weighing in some, perhaps many, instances.  Very few, if any, are for laws that serve no good purpose.           

 
???

our legal system has incarcerated a shyte ton of people

arguably more than any other country 



Except for the tiny country of the Seychelles, the United States tops the list of countries by incarceration rate.

Also see Harvey Silverglate's work.

I'd suggest three felonies a day.

Regards


steeler
About three bricks shy of a load
steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 12:52pm

 islander wrote:

That's not what I said. Your example seemed pretty one sided with the argument that simply eliminating the CAB had opened up competition, the airlines innovated and flourished and we were all the better for it (now I'm oversimplifying, but...). 

I'm saying that it wasn't just the elimination of the CAB. There were many factors involved, and much of the continued regulation, while admittedly burdensome was still positive and didn't "stifle the industry" as is often claimed.  Competition and 'free markets' don't solve all ills - neither does regulation. We need a nice balance of both.

 
Yes. Exactly. 

By definition, all laws, including regulations, serve as restrictions. When someone argues that a law is restrictive of someone's freedom, that, of course, is true, and it should go without saying.  It is the proverbial nature of the beast. The question becomes whether those restrictions, the infringements on someone's freedom,. are too burdensome and the cost of those burdens are not outweighed by the gains..  It is a cost-benefit analysis. And it cannot always be weighed just in terms of dollars and cents.  So, it can become difficult to do the weighing in some, perhaps many, instances.  Very few, if any, are for laws that serve no good purpose.           




Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 11:59am

 aflanigan wrote:
The other thing going on here is that L8 is pointing to a single example of dubious relevancy with respect to the US as a basis for setting policy. Denmark, if I'm not mistaken, is rather different from the US in that they don't have states with significant ruling autonomy. Their regions have limited authority to make laws, and I suspect economic policy and other issues relevant to businesses are decided solely at the national level. 

If I were offering this kind of argument (cherry picked example based on apples to oranges comparison), he'd probably be all over me for it, understandably so. 

So an example of near-total deregulation working splendidly isn't relevant because...in the US states and municipalities can still regulate?

Please elaborate. Explain why that justifies a national regulatory structure.

And yes, I realize that foreign countries are foreign. Otherwise they'd be us. But if we deregulated something in the US that still wouldn't be a good example because mumble mumble.
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 11:41am

The other thing going on here is that L8 is pointing to a single example of dubious relevancy with respect to the US as a basis for setting policy. Denmark, if I'm not mistaken, is rather different from the US in that they don't have states with significant ruling autonomy. Their regions have limited authority to make laws, and I suspect economic policy and other issues relevant to businesses are decided solely at the national level. 

If I were offering this kind of argument (cherry picked example based on apples to oranges comparison), he'd probably be all over me for it, understandably so. 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 9:27am

 islander wrote:
That's not what I said. Your example seemed pretty one sided with the argument that simply eliminating the CAB had opened up competition, the airlines innovated and flourished and we were all the better for it (now I'm oversimplifying, but...). 

I'm saying that it wasn't just the elimination of the CAB. There were many factors involved, and much of the continued regulation, while admittedly burdensome was still positive and didn't "stifle the industry" as is often claimed.  Competition and 'free markets' don't solve all ills - neither does regulation. We need a nice balance of both.

Not all regulatory burdens are equal, some are much worse than others. Not all regulatory benefits are equal, some have a higher benefit/cost ratio than others.

Yes, the airline industry is still regulated, never said it wasn't. Fares and routes are much less regulated than they were, and that has led to dramatic reductions in cost. A rule, say, standardizing seatbelt width is not as big an obstacle to innovation as one that says an airline must get permission years in advance to offer additional flights to the town hosting the Superbowl, for instance.

Go ahead and name the other factors that you think make this so complicated.
islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Apr 6, 2017 - 8:35am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 islander wrote:
Generally speaking I'd agree with you. But this is an oversimplification. While the CAB is gone, it would be hard to argue that the airlines are not subject to rules and regulations.  So it is possible to be innovative and competitive within a regulatory framework.  And regulatory frameworks can be beneficial to consumers and companies.

And we'll keep telling ourselves that because we won't explore the alternatives. The way we do it is The Way It Must Be Done.

It is not an oversimplification to point out that rules impose burdens—that's simply reality. We can argue over whether a rule's benefits justify the burden, but arguing that they don't would be silly.

 
That's not what I said. Your example seemed pretty one sided with the argument that simply eliminating the CAB had opened up competition, the airlines innovated and flourished and we were all the better for it (now I'm oversimplifying, but...). 

I'm saying that it wasn't just the elimination of the CAB. There were many factors involved, and much of the continued regulation, while admittedly burdensome was still positive and didn't "stifle the industry" as is often claimed.  Competition and 'free markets' don't solve all ills - neither does regulation. We need a nice balance of both.


Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 157, 158, 159  Next