On May 13, 7:52*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:00 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:
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.

The whole point is that there is no "man behind the screen" There is
no guy in a secret layer setting fuel prices. Its all the natural
forces of the market.

Certainly in a marketplace dominated by a monopoly, a free market is
inappropriate.

Monopoly = no competition. I support regulation that encourages
competition.

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. *

Less efficient airlines are expensive to customers so I see it as a
good thing that they went out of business. You really have to ask
yourself what the purpose of the airline is. Is it to employ airline
employees or is it to move customers around. If you want to create an
airline who's primary purpose is to employ people you are welcome to.

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.

Employees ultimately do better in a free economy because there are
more jobs. If you regulate the industry and unionize the employees you
just end up with a few people that have golden jobs and a bunch of
other people who can't find work (i.e. supply and demand are out of
wack)


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. *

It’s a fundamental concept in liberalism that people are too stupid to
make their own choices. Please understand that there are others of us
that consider that ability to be sacred.

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. *

No, you miss the point. Tabacco exists because people want to smoke.
What right does the gov't have to take that away from them? Its their
free choice.

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....

I agree, the best solution is to keep the gov't out with regard to
number of producers and pricing. They don't have a natural stake in
the game so they can't make pro/con decisions.


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. *

Yes, they've said they want low fares over low delays. The airlines
could have extra aircraft and crew (which they used to to some extent)
but pax are not willing to pay extra. They'll just go to the less
expensive airline. If you disagree, get rich and prove me wrong by
starting another airline(I won't mind).

-Robert