On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:00 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

On May 9, 4:39*pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"

In fact, that is what gov't regulation does. It disrupts the natural
forces of the market and directs artificial amount of money towards
certain people.

There's little question that government regulation "disrupts the
natural forces of the market," but I don't see that as a bad thing. *

I understand, and I understand there are a lot of people like you. For
many of us the natrual forces of the market are very intuitive but for
others its a difficult concept.

I understand that a free market promotes competition, and that results
in providing what the buyers want. But I believe that sort of
thinking is a bit simplistic and shortsighted, and overlooks some
significant issues that the "little man behind the screen" doesn't
want people to see.

Certainly in a marketplace dominated by a monopoly, a free market is
inappropriate. The Europeans know that, and are teaching Microsoft
about it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20818452/
EU court dismisses Microsoft appeal
Upholds $613 million fine, saying it was guilty of monopoly abuse

In the case of a marketplace like the air carrier market, while a free
market (deregulation) may have provided a positive result in lowering
fares, it has also produced additional negative effects. Competition
has forced less efficient, or less market driven airlines into
bankruptcy or unwelcome mergers and consequent unemployment of former
employees. After all, that is the key to survival: kill or eat the
competition, so that you can dominate the marketplace on the road to
monopolizing it. (While 'eat-or-be-eaten' may be the law of the
jungle, is it an appropriate doctrine for an enlightened society?) As
the subject of this discussion bears out, there is significant
collateral damage to free-market economics, and negative impact on the
lives of people involved in the unregulated industry.

The free-market concept is predicated on the buyers knowing what is
best (inevitably lower prices), but are buyers qualified to direct the
industry? Doubtful. Buyer's don't conduct research and make
intelligent decisions that benefit the industry above their own
personal wants. Take the tobacco marketplace for example; no one
would call tobacco smokers wise or sagacious, yet they built one of
the most poisonous industries ever in a free market place. Regulation
is appropriate at times.

The difficulty with market regulation lies in the bureaucratic ethos
of government regulators. They don't have a financial stake in the
industry they regulate, so they may not be sufficiently motivated to
act at times, and then there's always the question of ethics or the
lack thereof....

So I acknowledge your point, but it overlooks mine to the detriment of
all.

In a nut shell, as long as producers have to compete for customers,
customers will get the best value (based on what is important to them).
In the airline industry passengers have said over and over again that
they want cheap fares and are not willing to pay extra for comfort.

Have airline passengers said they want the consequent delays that
result when rampant competition forces air carriers to schedule an
unreasonable number of flights into hub airports or face losing market
share? No. Passengers aren't even aware that it is competition in
the deregulated marketplace that is producing those delays. And you
can bet the airlines aren't disclosing the fact that it is their being
forced to saturate hubs in order to survive the intense competition
that is the source of the absurd increase in flight delays**.
Consumers are not always qualified to decide what is best; their
analysis is often superficial and banal. Unbiased experts are far
more qualified to direct markets, but that approach has its drawbacks
too...

And we haven't even begun to consider if it in the best interest of
the world to have 5,000 aircraft in the air over the CONUS (and more
worldwide) the vast majority of which are transporting tourists
(537-million pax annually*) while spewing enough jet exhaust
(20,317,000,000 gallons of jet fuel annually by US air carriers*) to
change the temperature of the planet (born out during the flight ban
subsequent to 9/11***).

Several have tried to create "premium" airlines but they always fail.
If someday passengers prefer comfort over price the market will change.

The airline market is changing; there are more defectors to business
jets, and the airlines are attempting to change regulations to
increase the tax on GA to protect their current dominate position.
Business-jet operations are increasing significantly as a result of
the abysmal experience airline travel has become.





* http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/factcard.pdf ~20-trillion gallons!



** http://gettingtomaybe.blogspot.com/2...lue-delay.html
Thursday, February 22, 2007
News broke last week that passengers on Jet Blue flights were
subjected to 10 hour delays inside the plane, while on the runway.
Passengers were forced to wait for many hours due to bad weather
and an unavailability of open gates. ...



*** http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0210/p14s02-sten.html
Although cars generate more greenhouse gases, airliner exhaust has
an exaggerated effect, scientists say. Is it time to take action?

The result: growing scientific concern that jets may be turning
the skies into a hazier, heat-trapping place.

"Airliners are special because even though their total emissions
are relatively small, compared to other sources, they're putting
their emissions directly into the upper troposphere," says Joyce
Penner, a University of Michigan professor of atmospheric science
and lead author of a landmark report on aviation and the
atmosphere. "It's a special location."

--
So on this day, the 17th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
let us pause to consider how close we are to making ourselves fossils
from the fossil fuels we extract. In the next twenty years, almost a
billion Chinese people will be trading in their bicycles for the
automobile. Folks, we either get our **** together on this quickly,
or we're going to have to go to plan 'B': inventing a car that runs on
Chinese people. --Bill Maher, March, 31, 2006