Matthew Yglesias (July 23, 2008) - Air Travel Class War (Domestic Policy)

Another reason you may feel airline deregulation has been a disaster: You're not very bright.

Seriously, is there another policy that's been such an obvious, provable success that draws so much griping?

Posted by too many steves | July 23, 2008 11:57 AM

Well, except that depending on where they live, that middle-class family might have lost a lot of point-to-point service (part of that "low quality" equation). And if their closest hub ended up being a "fortress hub", they may have seen relatively little of the price cuts. And now they may be losing a lot of "spoke" service to their closest hub as a result of rising fuel prices.

Posted by DTM | July 23, 2008 12:05 PM

steves, you also find idiots who pine for the days when making a simple phone call to someone in another state, to say nothing of another country, was done in view of a clock, to avoid blowing up the monthly budget for luxuries.

Posted by Will Allen | July 23, 2008 12:06 PM

By the way, to be clear, I don't actually have a problem with airline deregulation. However, a natural consequence of that deregulation is reduced service (namely where routes are uneconomic), and that fact is starting to become abundently clear to many people as high fuel prices are making a lot more routes uneconomic.

What that means is that we need to start thinking a bit more seriously about alternatives to airline service where airline service is uneconomic. Which will often mean--gasp!--trains.

Posted by DTM | July 23, 2008 12:13 PM

Libertarians, oddly, tend to believe that any smart individual will naturally back a policy that benefits the many, even though a given smart individual may suffer from that policy. Case in point being airline deregulation. Selfishly, as a frequent traveler, I would prefer regulated air travel, as well as massive government subsidies for passenger rail. My personal quality life would be much better if these policies were enacted. I don't care if that makes life harder for some of you, and a libertarian should respect my selfish desire to pursue the goal that's best for me and to hell with all of you.

Posted by vanya | July 23, 2008 12:22 PM

It's worth noting that the linked post at McMegan's place is neither good nor actually about airline deregulation.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 23, 2008 12:24 PM

idiots who pine for the days when making a simple phone call to someone in another state, to say nothing of another country, was done in view of a clock...

I've never met anyone like the person described, but if anyone pines for those days, it might be because employer-provided health insurance and defined-benefit retirement plans were pretty much standard then, the U.S. actually had a solid manufacturing-based economy, and it was possible to pay for one's college education without taking out a home-mortgage-sized loan.

But you're right--overall, things are a lot better now that long-distance phone calls and air travel are so cheap.

Posted by James Gary | July 23, 2008 12:24 PM

I stand corrected... if you're brave enough to scroll through about four paragraphs of extremely dim anecdotal glibertarian praise for the Telecom deregulation act, you do eventually get to Megan's slightly less dim commentary on airline deregulation. But really, don't waste your time.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 23, 2008 12:28 PM

"It's worth noting that the linked post at McMegan's place is neither good nor actually about airline deregulation."

LaFollette,

You, and Matt, probably just misunderstood her point.

Posted by rickm | July 23, 2008 12:29 PM

"This is where folks have been able to give their employees a de facto pay cut in terms of subjecting them to cheaper, lower-quality air travel and plow the profits thereby gained into corporate jets and first class tickets."

This analysis makes no sense. Wages will adjust, no? Less compensation in terms of "high quality flights" means more in terms of cash.

Roger

Posted by RogerClemens | July 23, 2008 12:33 PM

One of the differences between corporate jets versus flying commercial is that the corporate jet process is owned by fewer people.

The private jet controls its takeoff and landing times, it controls the boarding and waiting process. I have flow both commercial and corporate from DC to the west coast. The corporate took about half the time and was much more easier to do. The corporate jet did not depend upon an airport authority parking lot, shuttle buses, TSA security procedures, or other things operated by a quasi-governmental airport authority.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 23, 2008 12:37 PM

Matt,

"This is where folks have been able to give their employees a de facto pay cut in terms of subjecting them to cheaper, lower-quality air travel and plow the profits thereby gained into corporate jets and first class tickets."

In past 10 years consultants in my business have seen their rates almost double. I think that has been driven, in part, by the need to pay more to compensate people for all the hassels business travel now involves.

I bet if you look at compensation for people who travel more than 1x a month for work over the past 10 years you will find a substantial increase.

Posted by jmo | July 23, 2008 12:41 PM

is there another policy that's been such an obvious, provable success that draws so much griping?

Hells, yeah. Social Security, for one, or for that matter virtually the entirety of the New Deal. The Endangered Species Act. The Clean Water Act. Sarbanes-Oxley. The lack of an official national language. Title IX. The list goes on and on.

I think Matt and McMegan have the right of it, actually -- airline deregulation was a good thing for some people (the very wealthy, most people from the middle-middle class down to the working class, people who live in or near built-up areas) and a bad thing for others (people who have to use commercial air travel for professional reasons, upper-middle class tourists, people who live in the most remote parts of flyover country). You can argue the first group is larger than the second, which it certainly is, but the second aren't wrong when they say their air travel experiences have gotten worse.

Posted by cminus | July 23, 2008 12:46 PM

James Gary, I've read several people in forums such as this maintain that telecommunications was better in the regulated days of the ATT near-monopoly. As to defined benefit pension plans, why is it assumed that a system which depends on a company being perpetually well managed, or regulatory body being well governed, is seen as sustainable? I mean, what in human history would indicate that a system which makes such an assumption will work better than a system in which people have individual ownership of assets, which they have in their self interest to manage well? Do you really think you are better off entrusting future revenue streams from assets to people you don't know at all, and who don't know you at all? Especially when their short term interests may not match your long term interests?

As to health care in the good old days, go find a parent with a child recently diagnosed with leukemia, and ask the parent whether they would have preferred to have the medical technology of thirty years ago be their treatment option.

Regarding college education, yep, that pretty much is the area in which costs have skyrocketed without any improvement in quality, but I doubt any of the possible solutions to that poor outcome would be welcomed by many of the people in this forum.

Posted by Will Allen | July 23, 2008 12:51 PM

too many steves,
Seriously, is there another policy that's been such an obvious, provable success that draws so much griping?

People tend not to notice the vast benefits that deregulation has produced, most obviously the huge reduction in ticket prices, and instead focus on the fact that they no longer get a piece of rubber chicken to eat in coach.

DTM,
Well, except that depending on where they live, that middle-class family might have lost a lot of point-to-point service (part of that "low quality" equation).

Highly unlikely.

What that means is that we need to start thinking a bit more seriously about alternatives to airline service where airline service is uneconomic. Which will often mean--gasp!--trains.

No, it will virtually never mean trains. It will mean--gasp!--driving or buses.

Posted by Mixner | July 23, 2008 12:51 PM

This analysis makes no sense. Wages will adjust, no? Less compensation in terms of "high quality flights" means more in terms of cash.

Naturally! Because ever since deregulation every business has shared with every employee exactly how much money they were saving on air travel expenses, so that the employees could fight for higher wages!

American businesses would never keep their employees in the dark about that so that they could pocket the profits! That would be...unfair!

Posted by Pesto | July 23, 2008 12:55 PM

Does anyone know anyone who likes to travel for business (unless they can't stand their husbands or wives anymore and may be getting some play in far away places)?

Apart from journalists, film crews, diplomats, musicians and whores I can't think of a good reason to subject people to the unpleasantness of going somewhere else for their job.

It should be okay to seal the deal by teleconference the same way that a lot more people should telecommute.

Posted by Linus | July 23, 2008 1:02 PM

MY writes: "In other words, business travelers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your missed connections!"

I find this spectacularly upsetting.

U.S. air travel is way, way safer now than it was before de-regulation.

Which is even more impressive when you consider that we have not substantially changed the FAA regulations that govern airline safety.

While better technology (planes, avionics, simulator training, etc) certainly does help, my take is that the margins have shrunk so much that the airlines simply can't afford the business downturn that would result from a well publicized accident. Consequently, they're a lot more careful and we're a lot more safer.

From Alfred Kahn, A.K.A. "Father of Airline Deregulation"

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AirlineDeregulation.html

"Air travel is unequivocally safer now than it was before deregulation. Accident rates during the twelve-year period from 1979 to 1990 were 20 to 45 percent (depending on the specific measures used) below their average levels in the six or twelve years before deregulation."

And, the accident rate has gotten better even as the number of flights has increased.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_38_21/ai_n27399370/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
Air Safety Week, Oct 8, 2007

"[By the end of Sept 2007 a reduction in the] accident rate of about 65 percent was achieved, one fatal accident in about 4.5 million departures, down from one in nearly two million in 1997."

And I haven't even gotten to the 'With-cheap-air-travel-fewer-people-drive' argument.

To sum up, there are people getting married and having kids right now who would be DEAD were it not for airline de-regulation.

I guess you're not aware of this but what you are saying is "IT'S OK FOR PEOPLE TO DIE BECAUSE I JUST DON'T LIKE BEING INCONVENIENCED".

SHAME ON YOU!

Posted by MarcInSeattle | July 23, 2008 1:15 PM

Linus,

I'm a consultant and I've had clients try and do projects remotely (involving all known communications technologies: video conference, con call, web collaboration, IM, e-mail, txt, etc. etc.) and it still ends up taking two to four times as long.

Posted by jmo | July 23, 2008 1:18 PM

too many steves,

I'm really bad at getting links into blog comments, so this may not work, but below is a link to a speech by former American Airlines CEO Bob Crandall, one of the prime movers of deregulation, arguing that airline deregulation has failed. That doesn't mean he's right, but he provides an analysis that goes a lot deeper than either Megan's post or what's been on this thread. I would also note that one consequence of price and entry deregulation - as we've recently discovered - is a much lower level capital expenditure on maintenance. Maybe that has not and will not produce any bad outcomes, but it doesn't sound promising. Finally, John Quiggin has a number of papers evaluating the-very-similar-to- the-US process of industry specific deregulation in Australia (including airlines and telecoms), and finds that arguments for its success are largely overblown. http://startelegram.typepad.com/sky_talk/2008/06/crandall-airlin.html

Posted by Rich C | July 23, 2008 1:19 PM

Is that a picture of the Charlotte airport?

Posted by Nordy | July 23, 2008 1:21 PM

You can argue the first group is larger than the second, which it certainly is, but the second aren't wrong when they say their air travel experiences have gotten worse.

I think that second group is mostly wrong too. Even for them, flying is much cheaper than it used to be, meaning they can afford to fly much more often. Planes are safer, quieter, more reliable and more comfortable. Service is more frequent and there are generally more choices of carrier and routing. Thanks to the internet, things like researching airlines, schedules, ticket prices, equipment types, seating charts, etc., purchasing tickets, and checking in for flights are much easier.

But people tend to ignore all this and instead whine about things like not getting a hot towel before landing, like they used to in the "good old days."

Over the past few years, several airlines have experimented with offering "economy plus" or "discounted-business-class" services, priced between regular economy and traditional business or first-class, that provide a level of service above regular economy, more like the allegedly superior economy service of the past. These products have not been very successful in the marketplace, indicating that, whatever people may say about flying, they don't really value those hot towels very much after all.

By the way, though the U.S. domestic air travel market is expected to contract somewhat over the next couple of years, outside the U.S. it is booming. Airbus and Boeing have received record orders for new planes over the past few years. Just last week, at the Farnborough Air Show in Britain, both planemakers received orders for hundreds more aircraft worth tens of billions of dollars. An airline that orders new aircraft today may have to wait a decade to actually get the planes because the production lines are so backed up.

Posted by Mixner | July 23, 2008 1:26 PM

No, Rich, Crandall, favors reregulation because it would be better for airline executives and existing shareholders, not because it would be good for consumers. Also, Crandall opposed deregulation.

Posted by Will Allen | July 23, 2008 1:33 PM

No, it will virtually never mean trains. It will mean--gasp!--driving or buses.

I recently chose to take Amtrak on a roughly 400-mile trip from DC to the Southern United States, based on an observation that it was much cheaper than flying, slightly cheaper than driving, and three hours faster than the bus.

Despite the fact that Amtrak is a generally woeful rail provider compared to other countries, I managed to arrive on time, in comfort, without having to battle Virginia rush hour traffic. Instead, I read an entire book and drank a reasonably-priced beer.

And while rail requires subsidies, neither air travel nor road travel pays for itself either. For trips of moderate length through areas with medium to high population density, it's an important travel option. Plus, it's very satisfying to know that you, Mixner, helped subsidize my trip. Ah, schadenfreude.

As for airline deregulation, it seems to be following the typical pattern of deregulated industries -- short-term benefits from competition (innovation, price wars) followed by subsequent waves of bankruptcies, bailouts, reconsolidation, and rising prices. In the case of airline deregulation, it was probably worth it. Other industries have not always fared as well.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 23, 2008 1:41 PM

As to health care in the good old days, go find a parent with a child recently diagnosed with leukemia, and ask the parent whether they would have preferred to have the medical technology of thirty years ago be their treatment option.

Phenomenal job here with the straw man. Are you so disingenuous that you just made this up, or did you actually somehow read this into James Gary's comment?

I guess you're not aware of this but what you are saying is "IT'S OK FOR PEOPLE TO DIE BECAUSE I JUST DON'T LIKE BEING INCONVENIENCED".

This is very funny. The logical leaps, the flights of fantasy to get to this point. It's a joke, right? Right?

Posted by Rambuncle | July 23, 2008 1:46 PM

I think we should also point out that hardly anyone was complaining about airline deregulation before fuel prices skyrocketed and jacked up everyone's costs. That's hardly a coincidence. Would you have considered the system 'broken' before gas was $4/gallon?

Posted by Persia | July 23, 2008 1:49 PM

Progressive, perhaps you could explain how "bailouts" are consistent with a policy of deregulation?

Rambuncle, Gary proposed that there were people pining for the health care paradigm of halcyon days of yore, unless he as being so silly as to propose that there is a way to seperate how a service was paid for, from the quality of the service being consumed. I find it usually to be the case that people who pine for the halcyon days of yore don't remember very much about the halcyon days of yore, or never knew anything about them to begin with.

Posted by Will Allen | July 23, 2008 2:02 PM

Rambuncle writes: "This is very funny. The logical leaps, the flights of fantasy to get to this point. It's a joke, right? Right?"

You're going to have to help me here and point out where you are having trouble following the logic.

Air travel is way safer since de-regulation in spite of the fact that air travel has increased considerably since then.

More planes and more people today get to their destination today instead of ending up in pieces on the ground.

I am arguing that had there not been de-regulation the accident rate would not have improved as much as it has. There would be more accidents. More people would die.

In other words there has simply been too big an improvement to simply write it off as 'Oh that would've happened anyway.'

We could do the same thing with medical procedures.

Before we had laproscopic surgery X% of people died from infection, now it's less. Ergo this procedure has saved lives.

That's my train of thought here.

I mean if de-regulation has been detrimental to safety can you show me that the accident rate is improving at a slower rate now than it was before de-regulation?

I say No.

Think of the technological advances that happened in the decade or so before de-regulation: jet engines replaced pistons, satellite weather maps enabled better weather briefings, and actual flight simulators with advanced training techniques gave us better trained pilots. And yet, the big improvement in safety comes later when we get rid of one piece of bureacracy, the Civil Aeronautics Board.

I have to admit - I'm pretty passionate about this topic but I'm willing to listen to what you have to say.

So, where's your evidence? Why do you so easily dismiss this conclusion?

Posted by MarcInSeattle | July 23, 2008 2:17 PM

Except that before deregulation, frequent flier miles didn't really exist in the system we have today. Now people who fly frequently for business get a boatload of free miles. I have friends that haven't paid for a flight or airline in 5 years thanks to their "free" miles. So in a way they do get it back, just not in cash. Not to mention, there are a lot more people flying on business than there were before precisely because it is so cheap.

Posted by Mo | July 23, 2008 2:27 PM

Progressive, perhaps you could explain how "bailouts" are consistent with a policy of deregulation?

Um, observation? It seems to be a consistent pattern across S&Ls, mortgage financing, energy, and many other sectors of the economy that have been deregulated.

Now, I do understand the point you're trying to make -- namely, that ideologically pure libertarians support deregulation and oppose bailouts and consider these to be philosophically inconsistent actions. But there's this funny thing about the actually-existing corporate lobbyists who pull the strings in Washington --they're a bunch of corrupt bastards who really couldn't give a shit about your precious ideology. And when the businesses that profited from deregulation go balls up when the party's over, they come back and beg for reregulation. That's the way the game is played.

Sure, you can blame California's energy problems on poorly-executed deregulation, just as you can blame the problems in Iraq on poorly-executed imperialism or blame the problems in Cambodia on poorly-executed Marxism. But real-world results count for a bit more than naive intentions, ne c'est pas?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 23, 2008 2:48 PM

Progressive, perhaps I missed the bailouts of the trucking and phone companies. Maybe you can point them out to me. There is nothing inevitable about bailouts and deregulation. In fact, regulation is usually just an extended, slow-motion, bail-out, designed to use state power to protect entrenched interests which are threatened by others' freedom of contract.

Posted by Will Allen | July 23, 2008 3:08 PM

I think that second group is mostly wrong too. Even for them, flying is much cheaper than it used to be, meaning they can afford to fly much more often. Planes are safer, quieter, more reliable and more comfortable. Service is more frequent and there are generally more choices of carrier and routing.

Except those things aren't either major factors for this group, or else don't apply to them.

If you're an upper-middle class tourist, the chief limiting factor on your use of air travel isn't money, it's time. If you travel coach on your company's dollar, price doesn't matter at all. Either way, your demand for air travel is not that price sensitive.

With respect to service, service is more frequent, with more choices of carrier and routing, if you're travelling between places that lots of people want to go. If you're not, you actually have less in the way of service -- former Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD) once complained that deregulation meant there was a flight between DC and Florida on the hour, and a flight between DC and South Dakota once a week. That's a great trade for most people, but it still legitimately sucks for a South Dakotan.

As for "[p]lanes are safer, quieter, more reliable and more comfortable" -- well, safer and quieter, sure, and maybe even more reliable if by reliable you mean "less likely to be taken out of service for repairs," but that's all a function of technological improvement, not deregulation. And if you believe that planes have gotten more comfortable, or more reliable in the sense of "likely to get you where you want to go, more or less on time," well, that's crazy talk.

These products have not been very successful in the marketplace, indicating that, whatever people may say about flying, they don't really value those hot towels very much after all.

As someone who was very excited about economy-plus arrangements, I think the problem with this model is that they're offering the wrong plusses. The economy-plus programs I've looked at offer first-class food and amenities in a coach-class seat; I want a seat sized midway between coach and first class, priced midway between coach and first class, and I'm willing to accept coach amenities (or lack thereof) if necessary.

Posted by cminus | July 23, 2008 3:37 PM

Linus, I actually enjoy the occasional business trip. The traveling is a hassle, but the change of pace/scenery is nice, and so is charging one or two nice meals to the company. Call me crazy.

When people complain about the quality of airline service (whether re-regulation would solve anything, I have no idea) they generally are talking about 2 things, and these are not hot towels and "food". What people don't like about contemporary air travel are 1) small seats, and 2) frequent delays and missed connections.

Some of the newer planes actually address problem 1. The Brazilian-made Embraer aircraft now being used for domestic service by Delta are much more comfortable to travel on than comparable Boeings and MDs. And Matt's ideas about congestion pricing might actually help to address number 2.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 23, 2008 4:00 PM

Mixner,

As usual, you have no clue.

First, airline deregulation decreased point-to-point routing and increased use of hub-and-spoke routing, precisely because hub-and-spoke routing was more economic for airlines. That is a very basic fact that not even the most ardent supporters of deregulation would deny, unless they were competely clueless.

Second, higher fuel prices slam medium and long distance travel by car as well, and of course such travel by car is much, much slower than air travel over routes of such distances, and that extra time driving is both inconvenient and economically wasteful. So telling these people to just start driving long distances is going to be highly unsatisfactory, and for good reason.

Third, buses are a more complicated subject, since they can be pretty fuel-efficient. However, unlike trains they are for the most part limited to being even slower than cars. So, while more bus service is likely, it also isn't going to be an efficient option for a lot of travel routes currently being phased out of the air system.

But it turns out that putting your buses on tracks and stringing them together allows them to be much faster, thanks to lower friction coefficients, weight savings, power-plant efficiencies, better guidance at high speeds, and so on. That makes these track-riding, strung-together buses (also known as trains) economically viable where wheeled and separated buses would not be viable.

Of course for some reason you have a deep-seated hatred of vehicles that run on tracks instead of putting rubber wheels on asphalt. But the rest of us understand that using such technology creates a better and more efficient substitute for discountined air service in many cases.

Posted by DTM | July 23, 2008 4:01 PM

Megan doesn't fly a lot does she? People who do fly a lot for business -- and I'm one of them -- don't deal with the same hassles as casual travelers.
They have special security lines for us. We almost always get upgraded to first or business class so we're first on/first off the plane. We get free booze and free food -- on some airlines its even edible. There's a special ticket line for us. They even have special reservation numbers so we're not stuck on hold forever if we have to change our travel plans. We have access to the airline clubs so if our plane is delayed we're not hanging out on the floor at the gate. They don't charge us to check our luggage.

What sucks for business travelers, as for everyone else, is the decline in the air travel infrastructure -- most specifically how overburdened the air traffic control system has become since Reagan destroyed PATCO. Flight delays are not the fault of the airlines, by and large. But its flight delays and the associated missed connections that make frequent air travel the torture that it is.

Posted by flory | July 23, 2008 4:19 PM

There are plenty of business travelers who like to fly. Go over to flyertalk.com and see.

It's fascinating the way they identify with each other by mileage tier level. Many insist that the price "they" pay allows the plebes to fly for the cheap fares, and seem to have actively repressed the fact that their employers are actually paying the business class fares, not them.

Posted by lobstakilla | July 23, 2008 4:38 PM

Progressive, perhaps I missed the bailouts of the trucking and phone companies. Maybe you can point them out to me.

OMG! Not every single deregulation scheme ever has ended up with a government bailout therefore libertarianism is tha bomb! You win!

The lack of a telecom bailout, thus far, is not for lack of effort on WorldCom's part. They ended up reorganizing under federal bankruptcy protection, writing off debts, and consolidating with Verizon, which falls rather well into the pattern I described. And the trucking industry is currently clamoring for aid due to high fuel prices. We'll see how that turns out.

There is nothing inevitable about bailouts and deregulation. In fact, regulation is usually just blah blah blah tripe blah...

So you're conceding my point that deregulation tends to generate short-term benefits followed by long-term instability, unethical behavior, bankruptcies, and reconsolidation. And we're quibbling over whether taxpayers get stuck with the tab every time, or only sometimes. Right?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 23, 2008 5:02 PM

former Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD) once complained that deregulation meant there was a flight between DC and Florida on the hour, and a flight between DC and South Dakota once a week. That's a great trade for most people, but it still legitimately sucks for a South Dakotan.

Except, if you go to Kayak and do a one way trip from DC to Sioux falls, there are 40 flight that take less than 5 hours, including a one stop layover and aren't red eyes. Man it's nearly impossible to get from DC to Sioux Falls. Granted it's more expensive than a flight to LA, but there are a shit ton of flights to LA and a lot of competition on those routes.

Posted by Mo | July 23, 2008 5:15 PM

Is that SeaTac? I love that airport. Decent food and books, great art and awesome beer (Mac and Jacks in frosty mugs).

Posted by ben | July 23, 2008 5:57 PM

Progressive, for some reason, you have concluded that my remarks with regards to bailouts has something to do with bankruptcies. It does not. If you think the existence of bankruptices is evidence of dysfunction in an industry or in an economy, or that long term instability is, well, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. As to unethical behavior, you seem to be implying that deregulated industries feature more of it. There is no reason for such a belief.

Sometimes regulation makes sense, but not because bankruptcies might take place without it, or because a company going bankrupt might successfully lobby politicians for a bailout. By your logic, regulation should never take place, because regulation frequently results in regulatory capture, resutling in higher consumer costs and lower quality.

Posted by Will Allen | July 23, 2008 6:16 PM

cminus,

Except those things aren't either major factors for this group, or else don't apply to them.

Huh? Your claim makes no sense. I'd love to see your evidence that ticket prices, safety, comfort, reliability, choice of carriers and routes, on-line research, ticket purchase, seat selection and check-in, and the other things I listed, are not "major factors" for "people who have to use commercial air travel for professional reasons, upper-middle class tourists, people who live in the most remote parts of flyover country."

...but that's all a function of technological improvement, not deregulation.

Another utterly unsubstantiated assertion. What makes you think market forces have nothing to do with technological improvement in these areas?

And if you believe that planes have gotten more comfortable, or more reliable in the sense of "likely to get you where you want to go, more or less on time," well, that's crazy talk.

Again, if you have any evidence showing that the comfort and reliability of aircraft has not improved since deregulation, then produce it. On-time arrival is obviously related to reliability. The more often aircraft suffer from mechanical problems, the more often flights are likely to be delayed.

Posted by Mixner | July 23, 2008 6:48 PM

DTM,

First, airline deregulation decreased point-to-point routing and increased use of hub-and-spoke routing,

By how much? For how many people? Where is your evidence? Stop guessing, DTM, and try educating yourself.

Second, higher fuel prices slam medium and long distance travel by car as well, and of course such travel by car is much, much slower than air travel over routes of such distances, and that extra time driving is both inconvenient and economically wasteful.

Huh? Your claim was that "where airline service is uneconomic" the alternative "will often mean ... trains." So the relevant time comparison is not cars vs. planes but cars vs. trains. And trains have little or no time advantage over cars. Trains are also subject to higher fuel prices. Most of Amtrak's locomotives run on diesel.

If you think you have a serious case to make that trains are "often" the best alternative to "uneconomic" airline service, then make it.

But it turns out that putting your buses on tracks and stringing them together allows them to be much faster, thanks to lower friction coefficients, weight savings, power-plant efficiencies, better guidance at high speeds, and so on. That makes these track-riding, strung-together buses (also known as trains) economically viable where wheeled and separated buses would not be viable.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Yeah, that must be why trains carry such a tiny share of intercity passenger traffic in the United States, even though they receive massively higher subsidies than either buses or cars.

Posted by Mixner | July 23, 2008 7:02 PM

former Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD) once complained that deregulation meant there was a flight between DC and Florida on the hour, and a flight between DC and South Dakota once a week. That's a great trade for most people, but it still legitimately sucks for a South Dakotan.

A 30-second search on Kayak, using its default search engine dates, yielded dozens of daily flight options from Washington Reagan to Rapid City, on multiple carriers. I didn't even bother to check Dulles. Admittedly, none of them are non-stop flights, but I doubt Pressler would consider the tradeoff unjustified, even for his personal situation.

Posted by Mixner | July 23, 2008 7:22 PM

I'd love to see your evidence that ticket prices, safety, comfort, reliability, choice of carriers and routes, on-line research, ticket purchase, seat selection and check-in, and the other things I listed, are not "major factors" for "people who have to use commercial air travel for professional reasons, upper-middle class tourists, people who live in the most remote parts of flyover country."

That's a hell of a lot of things, so I'll just hit a few of the easy ones.

Choice of carriers. You only get a choice of airlines if you're going places multiple airlines want to go. Pretend you want to fly between Minot, ND and Washington, DC. Now go to Travelocity and see how many itineraries don't require you to fly Northwestern. For people in deep flyover country, you usually only get two choices -- the only airline that serves your area, or the bus. An upper-middle class tourist may only fly once per year, or less. That's not enough to have an informed opinion about each carrier. A person who flies for work may or may not get to choose the carrier.

Price. A flight from Minot to DC costs four times what you'd pay for a trip from Los Angeles to DC; lower fares would be nice, but deregulation hasn't provided them. An upper-middle class tourist who flies once per year probably does so on a big transcontinental or international flight, and an extra couple hundred bucks once per year on a flight that's already a big ticket item isn't really that big of a deal. Someone who charges their ticket to their employer or a client is probably not going to be that worried about saving a few bucks, are they? (Before you answer that, do you make health care decisions based upon your co-pay, or the total cost before insurance?)

Comfort. Comfort is a matter of taste. I, and a commanding majority of rational people in general, believe that air travel has gotten less comfortable. Just read the papers. You, and a few masochists, may disagree.

Oh, and one more thing:

Again, if you have any evidence showing that the comfort and reliability of aircraft has not improved since deregulation, then produce it..

No, how about you provide evidence that on-time rates have not gotten worse since deregulation? (Assuming you've done your homework, you know that's impossible to demonstrate either way, since the FAA and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics are adamant that on-time rates before and after 1995 cannot be meaningfully compared.)

Now, bear in mind that I agree with the general argument -- that deregulation was on the whole advantageous. But there were indeed losers.

Posted by cminus | July 23, 2008 8:12 PM

Will Allen -- By your logic... [a whole bunch of crap that has nothing to do with my logic]

Um, no. There's so much straw and manure flying in your response that I'm not even going to wade in there.

I never, at any point, made any blanket statements in favor of, or opposed to deregulation. I think these matters should be handled on a case by case basis without wearing ideological blinders.

My point was that the benefits of deregulation tend to be short-lived, followed by a wave of problems in the industry that often lead to government bailouts and reregulation. And just maybe we should take that into consideration whenever corporate lobbyists start pressing to deregulate their industry. You seem to be psychologically incapable of discussing this point without laspsing into kneejerk arguments against liberal bogeymen.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 23, 2008 10:06 PM

Mixner,

You write: "By how much? For how many people? Where is your evidence? Stop guessing, DTM, and try educating yourself."

Everything I have ever read about airline deregulation has noted it led to airlines shifting from more of a point-to-point model to more of a hub-and-spoke model. Indeed, that was where a large part of the efficiency gains came from. You can deny it if you wish, but it just makes you look like have no clue about the history of the airline industry--which is undoubtedly true.

"And trains have little or no time advantage over cars."

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. But I guess even that much nuance is too much for you to handle.

"Trains are also subject to higher fuel prices. Most of Amtrak's locomotives run on diesel."

And what used to be your favorite chart shows that Amtrak, even running at low capacities thanks to a lot of uneconomic routes (see below), is much more fuel efficient than our passenger vehicle fleet. If you were capable of understanding economics, you would realize that the number of cases in which trains are more economic than cars will increase as fuel prices increase because of this advantage in fuel-efficiency.

"Yeah, that must be why trains carry such a tiny share of intercity passenger traffic in the United States, even though they receive massively higher subsidies than either buses or cars."

As many have noted to you before, our train subsidies have often been wasted on uneconomic routes and services. But because you are not a bright fellow, you think that means there is something wrong with the technology, as opposed to there being something wrong with the political process.

Posted by DTM | July 23, 2008 10:29 PM

DTM,

Everything I have ever read about airline deregulation has noted it led to airlines shifting from more of a point-to-point model to more of a hub-and-spoke model.

Assertions about what you have read are not evidence, DTM. I don't doubt that there has been some shift from point-to-point to hub-and-spoke routing as a result of deregulation. I do very strongly doubt that this has had anything more than a small adverse effect on air travel for a small segment of the population.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't.

Your claim was that uneconomic airline service will "often" mean trains instead. Care to clarify that? How "often?" How often in comparison to other alternatives such as buses and cars? What makes you think it's "often" rather than "occasionally" or "rarely?"

Amtrak, even running at low capacities thanks to a lot of uneconomic routes (see below), is much more fuel efficient than our passenger vehicle fleet. If you were capable of understanding economics, you would realize that the number of cases in which trains are more economic than cars will increase as fuel prices increase because of this advantage in fuel-efficiency.

If you had the vaguest understanding of economics you might know that it makes absolutely no sense to refer to the "economics" of an Amtrak route without accounting for Amtrak's vastly disproportionate government subsidies. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that there is even one, single solitary route in the entire Amtrak network that is economically competitive with alternative modes of transportation if all costs and benefits are taken into consideration. Amtrak survives only because the government massively subsidizes ticket prices for its riders. Whatever economic advantage trains may have over private passenger vehicles in terms of passenger-mile energy-efficiency, that advantage is swamped by all the economic disadvantages of rail.

And in fact the BTS table you're presumably referring to does not show even that Amtrak is more energy-efficient than private passenger vehicles. It compares only operating energy costs and not total energy costs. The energy costs involved in the construction of rail track and train stations is enormous. Any comprehensive comparison of energy efficiency must take these costs into account as well as operating energy costs.

Posted by Mixner | July 23, 2008 11:22 PM

Mixner,

You write: "I do very strongly doubt that this has had anything more than a small adverse effect on air travel for a small segment of the population."

My only claim was that some middle-class people were adversely affected by this shift. I'd happily agree that most middle-class people benefited, because most middle-class people have been adequately served by the hub-and-spoke system, and at a lower cost. Of course as I noted above, I am not a general critic of deregulation. I just think it is important to be clear on all the categories of people adversely affected, and those categories include people of every economic class in certain markets where direct flights were very significantly cut even entirely eliminated (these were mostly rural markets, but also some smaller urban areas).

"Your claim was that uneconomic airline service will 'often' mean trains instead. Care to clarify that?"

Sure. I meant "often" in the sense of "in many cases". I wasn't taking a stand on the relative amount of switching to different modes of transportation. If you are interested in a description of the conditions I think would make trains a viable alternative, feel free to ask.

"Whatever economic advantage trains may have over private passenger vehicles in terms of passenger-mile energy-efficiency, that advantage is swamped by all the economic disadvantages of rail."

Please back up this claim for every single possible instance of train usage.

"And in fact the BTS table you're presumably referring to does not show even that Amtrak is more energy-efficient than private passenger vehicles. It compares only operating energy costs and not total energy costs. The energy costs involved in the construction of rail track and train stations is enormous. Any comprehensive comparison of energy efficiency must take these costs into account as well as operating energy costs."

Feel free to include all relevant factors in your analysis of every single possible instance of train usage.

Posted by DTM | July 23, 2008 11:48 PM

DTM,

My only claim was that some middle-class people were adversely affected by this shift.

So, overall access/cost of air travel for some small and possibly minuscule fraction of the population might have been adversely affected by deregulation. Hardly seems worth mentioning. You're obviously straining to find something bad to say about deregulation.

Sure. I meant "often" in the sense of "in many cases".

How many? I'm not asking for an exact number, just some reasonable quantification. One might describe 1,000 people as "many" people. But in a nation of 300 million people, it's a drop in the ocean.

Please back up this claim for every single possible instance of train usage.

Er, since I didn't say anything about every "possible" "instance" of train usage, I'm not sure why you're asking me to do this.

Amtrak receives billions of dollars a year in government subsidies. Amtrak's own financial reports admit that revenues from ticket sales don't even cover its operating costs, let alone its total costs. If you think there is even a single route in the entire Amtrak system that is economically competitive with road and air alternatives, it's up to you to show that.

Feel free to include all relevant factors in your analysis of every single possible instance of train usage.

Bzzt! Non-responsive. Attempt to change the subject. You claimed that Amtrak is "much more fuel efficient than our passenger vehicle fleet." To support this claim, you alluded to a table that compares only operating energy-efficiceny, not total energy-efficiency, including construction costs.

Do you have evidence that Amtrak is more energy-efficient than passenger vehicles in total energy consumption? No, of course you don't. More faith-based bullshit and wishful thinking.

Posted by Mixner | July 24, 2008 12:13 AM

Mixner,

You write:

"You're obviously straining to find something bad to say about deregulation."

Again, no, because I don't have an overall problem with airline deregulation, and indeed I recognize it was beneficial overall. Once again, your childish view of the world makes it impossible for you to understand that someone could think deregulation was a good idea overall, but caused problems for some specific people that may be worth addressing through other means.

"How many? I'm not asking for an exact number, just some reasonable quantification."

Exactly how many routes will be lost, and how many could be economically switched to trains, will depend heavily on exactly what happens with fuel prices. But to give some sense of scale, the 2006 study for the proposed Midwest high speed rail network estimated a diversion of about 1.3 million air trips by 2020. They also noted that number would be higher if O'Hare was connected, and obviously that estimate would be higher today due to fuel price increases since 2006. So I would currently estimate trips well into the millions, and probably tens of millions, nationwide as a result of switching from air service to economic rail service. But again, exact numbers will depend on things like fuel prices.

"I didn't say anything about every 'possible' 'instance' of train usage, I'm not sure why you're asking me to do this."

Previously, you said:

"Whatever economic advantage trains may have over private passenger vehicles in terms of passenger-mile energy-efficiency, that advantage is swamped by all the economic disadvantages of rail."

If you just mean that is sometimes true, then I agree--sometimes, and indeed "often", private passenger vehicles are more economically efficient than trains. But if you instead mean that is always true, then I think my request is fair--prove it is always true.

"Do you have evidence that Amtrak is more energy-efficient than passenger vehicles in total energy consumption?"

Do you have evidence it isn't?

I really love this tactic of yours. A person points to some relevant statistics. You come up with some hypothesis about why some other factor may outweigh those statistics. But then you provide absolutely no evidence to support your hypothesis. Rather, you just assert the other person has to disprove your hypothesis.

So if you want to claim the issue of lifecycle energy costs for Amtrak is unsettled, fine--but so are the lifecycle energy costs of all other modes of transport. What is childish is to maintain that just because you imagine some possibility (that on a lifecycle basis other modes would come out ahead), it is proven to be true, at least until it is instead definitely proven to be false.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 12:42 AM

Progressive, you seem to be psychologically unable to honestly acknowledge what you previously wrote, thus causing you to now write that your concern about deregulation is limited to the prospect of bailouts and reregulation, and not also your idiotic previous assertion that the existence of bankruptcy is an indicator of dysfunction in an economy or industry, or that regulated industries suffer less from dishonest people.

Posted by Will Allen | July 24, 2008 12:47 AM

Progressive, you seem to be psychologically unable to honestly acknowledge what you previously wrote, thus causing you to now write that your concern about deregulation is limited to the prospect of bailouts and reregulation, and not also your idiotic previous assertion that the existence of bankruptcy is an indicator of dysfunction in an economy or industry, or that regulated industries suffer less from dishonest people.

Posted by Will Allen | July 24, 2008 12:47 AM

DTM,

Exactly how many routes will be lost, and how many could be economically switched to trains, will depend heavily on exactly what happens with fuel prices.

As I already told you, I'm not asking for an "exact" number. Just some reasonably clear description of what you meant by "often" in this context. How "often" do you think uneconomic airline service "will mean trains"? In something like 70% of cases? 30%? 2%? 0.001%? Give us a ballpark magnitude. And do you mean "often" in terms of the share of trips? Share of passengers? Share of passenger-miles? Or what?

If you just mean that is sometimes true,

No, I mean that it appears to be true for every single route in the Amtrak network. If you think you have evidence that even a single route is economically competitive with road and air alternatives, when all costs and benefits are taken into consideration, including government subsidies, then produce it.

Do you have evidence it isn't?

Sorry, you're the one who claimed "Amtrak...is much more fuel efficient than our passenger vehicle fleet." Do you have evidence to support this claim--taking into account total energy costs, not just operating energy costs--or don't you?

The following evidence should give you some feel for just how much energy is needed to construct rail systems:

The environmental impact statement for Portland’s North Interstate light rail estimated that the line would save about 23 billion BTUs per year but that construction would cost 3.9 trillion BTUs. Thus, it would take 172 years for the savings to repay the construction cost. In fact, long before 172 years, automobiles are likely to be so energy efficient that light rail will offer no savings at all.

Similarly, the North Link light-rail line in Seattle is estimated to save about 346 billion BTUs of energy in 2015, declining to 200 billion in 2030. Construction is estimated to require 17.4 trillion BTUs. If the savings remains constant at 200 billion BTUs after 2030, the savings will not repay the cost until 2095.

Posted by Mixner | July 24, 2008 1:14 AM

As someone who was very excited about economy-plus arrangements, I think the problem with this model is that they're offering the wrong plusses. The economy-plus programs I've looked at offer first-class food and amenities in a coach-class seat; I want a seat sized midway between coach and first class, priced midway between coach and first class, and I'm willing to accept coach amenities (or lack thereof) if necessary.

Well...space is the most valuable commodity on an airliner, being absolutely limited. Meals and movies cost peanuts compared to giving passengers more space. Still, what you describe sounds a lot like premium economy on BA. I was upgraded once London to New York. It was swell.

Posted by ERM | July 24, 2008 3:40 AM

Matt, you need to get out your old labor econ textbook and look up "compensating differential. Or just google it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensating_differential

Posted by ed | July 24, 2008 4:10 AM

Mixner,

To repeat, I meant "often" in the sense of "in many cases", as opposed to in the sense of "more often than X". So, I don't have any particular diversion percentages in mind for the various possible alternatives.

Anyway, you write:

"No, I mean that it appears to be true for every single route in the Amtrak network."

OK, then prove your claim was true for every route in the Amtrak network. Who knows, you may ne right--as I have said before, I don't consider myself to be a defender of the status quo.

"Sorry, you're the one who claimed 'Amtrak...is much more fuel efficient than our passenger vehicle fleet.' Do you have evidence to support this claim--taking into account total energy costs, not just operating energy costs--or don't you? Do you have evidence to support this claim--taking into account total energy costs, not just operating energy costs--or don't you?"

A little dramatic play:

Nixmer: How fuel-efficient is your car?

Normal Person: It gets about 26 MPG highway, 22 city.

Nixmer: Hah! You didn't include the energy cost of making the car, buildings the roads it travels on, repair and maintenance, and so on. Nixmer wins! Nixmer wins!

Again, the bottomline is that it is YOUR hypothesis that when you factor in all these other energy costs, it overcomes the thing every normal person would recognize as fuel-efficiency, and does so in every single possible case. So since that is your hypothesis, you prove it.

And no, CATO didn't prove it for you. They made no attempt to actually quantify the lifecycle energy costs of alternatives to the projects they looked at, and of course they just cherry-picked projects in the first place.

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 9:02 AM

Will Allen -- ...and not also your idiotic previous assertion that the existence of bankruptcy is an indicator of dysfunction in an economy or industry, or that regulated industries suffer less from dishonest people.

Let's see, that's two more "assertions" I didn't make. You're starting to remind me of my ex-girlfriend.

Here's what I originally wrote:

"As for airline deregulation, it seems to be following the typical pattern of deregulated industries -- short-term benefits from competition (innovation, price wars) followed by subsequent waves of bankruptcies, bailouts, reconsolidation, and rising prices. In the case of airline deregulation, it was probably worth it. Other industries have not always fared as well."

Is it even remotely possible for you to argue that point without putting words in my mouth? There's a big difference between a "wave of bankruptcies" and "the existence of bankruptcy". And perhaps an even bigger difference between "unethical behavior" and "dishonest people." Consider the behavior of drivers in the presence or absence of a police car.

Are you seriously arguing that the bankruptcy rate is not an indicator of the health of an industry? Or that a series of high-profile bankruptcies and failures resulting in a coordinated campaign to bail out an industry, especially when the crisis does not spread to more closely regulated industries, is not an indication that something has gone wrong with the deregulation plan? I'm genuinely curious as to whether you're as much of a nut as you appear to be.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 24, 2008 9:38 AM

No, Progressive, bankruptcy, even "waves" of them (please precisely define a "wave") is a way to have assets redeployed in a manner that better serves people. I'm sorry that this needs to be explained to you, but perhaps if schools could go bankrupt, examples of ignorance as profound as yours would be more rare. Oh well.

Show me an industry without bankruptcies, occasionally "waves" of them, and I'll show you one where consumers are likely getting screwed. The fact that people who fail in the execution of their business then try to access the taxpayer's wealth is not evidence that bankruptcy, even waves of them, is not an absolutely vital phenomena to a healthy industry and economy. People who go bankrupt also sometimes embezzle, but that isn't a good argument in favor of reducing the phenomena of bankruptcy.

I am also sorry that your education was such that you are unable to grasp that the term "dishonest" is a perfectly usable synonym for the term "unethical", but then I can't solve all your problems. As to your analogy with police, consider the behavior of police in the War on Drugs. No, having a regulator present is not an indicator of more ethical behavior prevailing.

Posted by Will Allen | July 24, 2008 10:22 AM

So, in other words, you're not only a nut, you're an egotistical nut. Glad we're cleared that up.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 24, 2008 10:30 AM

Progressive, here's a hint; the machine you use to communicate with me will also give you access to a thesaurus. Try it some time.

Oh no! There are waves of bankruptcies in retailing! People aren't shopping at Sharper Image any longer! Oh, the humanity! The dysfunction!

Posted by Will Allen | July 24, 2008 10:54 AM

Oh, the glibertarian hilarity! There's nothing funnier than layoffs and foreclosures! LOL!!1!

I'm just a poor, uneducated rube, and I don't know if this word appears in this fancy thesaurus you speak of, but the word "douchebaggery" comes to mind.

Sure, there are benefits to a little creative destruction now and then. But the idea that the mortgage refinancing industry is currently healthier and more productive than traditional banking is not one I'd want to associate myself with publicly.

It's possible that someone, somewhere on earth is still reading this thread, and is so impressed by your erudition, education, and self-confidence that they will see the light and embrace the Gordon Gekko Gospel. But I suspect it's closer to the truth that the only people reading this are you and me, and you aren't fooling me. So who, exactly, are you trying to impress?

I think the ten-cent word you're looking for is "onanism".

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 24, 2008 11:27 AM

Of course, the sort of person that believes that an industry dominated by entities like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac is an example of a deregulated industry, and thus can provide insight into the pros and cons of deregulation, can't be impressed, because beings with an intellect which approximates a mollusk's lack the capacity to be impressed.

Goodness! I can't buy an airline ticket on TWA or Eastern! Oh, Noooooooooooo! The waves are crashing!!!

Posted by Will Allen | July 24, 2008 11:42 AM

Whereas the sort of person who can't grasp the distinction between subsidies and regulations, thinks the words "people" and "behavior" are synonymous, and spends his time dispensing two-bit Econ 101 lectures in blog comments, is bound to go far in this world.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 24, 2008 12:03 PM

Actually, regulatory legislation is always written when subsidies are present. Does everything need to be explained to you?

Posted by Will Allen | July 24, 2008 12:10 PM

Flight delays are not the fault of the airlines, by and large.

Actually, at the busy airports -- ORD, ATL, JFK/LGA/EWR -- it is the fault of the airlines. O'Hare can handle 100 landings an hour -- in good weather -- three miles visibility, winds light, ceiling 1000' AGL, runways dry. It can handle 78 in most weather, and occasionally drops below that.

So, what have the airlines done? They schedule 100 flights an hour into ORD. About 20% of the time, ORD can't handle that load. If you have 100 flights scheduled, but can only land 68, 32 of them have to be delayed. If this holds for another hour, you now have 132 (32 delayed, 100 scheduled) trying to land in that hour, and only 68 can land. Soon, you give up and cancel a bunch of them.

ORD is reconfiguring to handle more traffic, but the *simplest* way to fix ORD is to limit it to 70 arrivals an hour. But if the airlines insist on trying to land 130 planes an hour into ORD after the new runway opens, we're going to see the same problem.

All the other delay-ridden airports have the same problem. They are consistently asked to handle loads that can only be handled in perfect weather, and weather is far from perfect. Cut JFK to 40 landings an hour, ATL to 90, etc., and delays at these airports will become rare, not near daily occurrence.

JFK and ORD are also hampered by a large number of internationals. It's hard to ground stop internationals, they're already in the air when you realize there are weather problems and have to drop arrival rates. During the international arrival pushes, you might have 20 of them landing in that hour. That makes life even harder on the domestics.

Posted by Erik Olson | July 24, 2008 12:42 PM

Yes, Will Allen: Super Genius, several things do need to be explained to me.

1. When "deregulation" became synonymous with "the utter lack of any government regulation whatsoever."

2. How the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 does not constitute deregulation.

3. Whether the reliance by lenders on collateralized debt obligations and structured investment vehicles would have occurred under the previous regulatory scheme.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 24, 2008 12:46 PM

DTM,

To repeat, I meant "often" in the sense of "in many cases", as opposed to in the sense of "more often than X". So, I don't have any particular diversion percentages in mind for the various possible alternatives.

I see. So when DTM says "often," he may mean only something like "in a tiny fraction of all cases." Got it.

OK, then prove your claim was true for every route in the Amtrak network.

I don't have to "prove" it's true for any route in the Amtrak network. You're the one who's claiming that Amtrak is more energy-efficient than cars, not me. Where is your evidence? Where are your studies?

You don't have any evidence, do you, DTM? You don't have any studies, do you, DTM? Just more of your endless bullshit wishful thinking presented as fact.

Posted by Mixner | July 24, 2008 1:29 PM

Progressive, repeal of Glass Steagal constituted deregulation in the same sense that a man going from 700 pounds to 650 pounds constitutes drastic weight loss in a morbidly obese man. The notion that the mortgage industry became deregulated with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and thus can give us insight as to what generalizations regarding deregulation can be made, is too stupid for words.

Look, you wrote a bunch of nonsensical, sometime contradictory tripe, and then tried to obsfuscate what you had written. At one time you wrote that you viewed deregulation on a case by case basis, without ideological blinders. In the next paragraph (!), you write....

"My point was that the benefits of deregulation tend to be short-lived, followed by a wave of problems in the industry that often lead to government bailouts and reregulation."

....which certainly implies a preconceived theory of how a proposal to deregulate is rightly viewed. Of course,you had previously written....

"So you're conceding my point that deregulation tends to generate short-term benefits followed by long-term instability, unethical behavior, bankruptcies, and reconsolidation."

....which also indicates an ideology through which deregulation is viewed. When it was pointed out that bankruptcy was essential to a healthy economy, and dishonesty (yes, it is synonymous with unethical) was present everywhere, you changed your tune, and said your concern regarding deregulation was due to the possibilities of bailouts and reregulation.

Let me know when you are done arguing with yourself, and then you can start arguing with me again.

Posted by Will Allen | July 24, 2008 2:06 PM

So, in other words, Will Allen, you're an egotistical nut who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

Let's grade the debate performance of Will Allen, Super Genius:

1. I made a general observation regarding the outcomes of deregulation, and the long-term problems that tend to follow the short-term benefits. I specifically said that I thought airline deregulation was worth it, on balance, but many other instances probably weren't.

2. You criticized me for saying and implying things that I plainly never said or implied.

3. I clarified what I meant and cited examples.

4. You accuse me of backpedaling and contradicting myself because I don't agree with your straw man. Classic! Will Allen WINZ AGAIN!!!1!

Bonus Points:
1. I draw a distinction between "unethical behavior" and "dishonest people" which sends you into an apopleptic fit about how unethical and dishonest are SO TOTALLY THE SAME THING! ZOMG I own a thesaurus! BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT A NOUN IS!

That was my favorite part of this thread. Thanks for the memories, Will. But I would never compare your intellect to a mollusk, because mollusks aren't noted for their chutzpah.

2. I enjoyed your amusing rants about how awesomely educated you are, and vivid imagery about morbidly obese men, and a bunch of Libertarianism for Dummies boilerplate about bankruptcy that cruises right past the point. And, naturally, the only serious response you can muster is some variant of "I know you are but what am I?"

Here's a hint: try looking up "ideology" in your online dictionary before embarrassing yourself again.

This has been fun, but I really do need to get some work done this afternoon. Have fun role-playing with your Objectivist action figures.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 24, 2008 3:35 PM

perhaps if schools could go bankrupt, examples of ignorance as profound as yours would be more rare

Nice one!

Posted by jmo | July 24, 2008 3:42 PM<

Air Travel Class War

Comments (76)