Fly the Friendly Skies...

Discuss H&R posts and other Reason articles here.
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21852
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Warren » 19 Apr 2017, 14:02

fyodor wrote:
Warren wrote:Sorry I thought you were.
nicole wrote:Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
But I guess you were trying to make a point about YOU and WE?

But then you're wrong. I see no evidence that the aggregate of people want regulation because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors. People want property rights. If they pay for the seat, they're entitled to the seat.
But you're not paying for the seat in an unqualified manner, based on the actual terms of the contract. And that's what we get because that's what the airlines have found they can offer and still get people to pay.
What Aresen said.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7626
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 14:10

Warren wrote:Sorry I thought you were.
nicole wrote:Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
But I guess you were trying to make a point about YOU and WE?

But then you're wrong. I see no evidence that the aggregate of people want regulation because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors. People want property rights. If they pay for the seat, they're entitled to the seat.
You think if we had a free market people wouldn't call for regulation because they don't like how it plays out?
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7626
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 14:11

fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:
fyodor wrote:
But you are part of the aggregate that is composed of you and your neighbors. When you and your neighbors is a very large number, what you personally want inevitably becomes a smaller factor.

At worst it seems to me you're complaining about messaging rather than the argument per se. There's definitely some unpacking to do when people don't recognize certainly aspects of how the market works, and I don't know if any of us knows the best wording for getting people to understand.

That said, I think rather than simply saying you want this, it might be a little better to stress the paradoxically aggregate nature of demand, as well as pointing out that what aggregate revealed preference tells business isn't only what customers want but also what customers are willing to put up with.
This.
Okay then. *I* think that's what McArdle means, I think she means "you" in the aggregate not "you" personally, but I can see how that can get lost! The main way what she said might apply to any one individual is the old well if you hate it so much you don't have to buy it that's implied.
Her *whole thing* was this cutesy dialogue about how you should stfu with your complaints. Her whole framing was, "no, actually, you want this." And no part of her framing was, "Yes, I'm sorry everyone is horrible, unfortunately we all have to deal with that, but it is extremely unfortunate."
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7626
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 14:12

Mo wrote:
JasonL wrote:United is truly remarkable.
If it wasn't for Frontier, they'd be #1 (worst customer sat).
Frontier: the mistake you only make once
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7626
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 14:13

Warren wrote:
fyodor wrote:
Warren wrote:Sorry I thought you were.
nicole wrote:Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
But I guess you were trying to make a point about YOU and WE?

But then you're wrong. I see no evidence that the aggregate of people want regulation because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors. People want property rights. If they pay for the seat, they're entitled to the seat.
But you're not paying for the seat in an unqualified manner, based on the actual terms of the contract. And that's what we get because that's what the airlines have found they can offer and still get people to pay.
What Aresen said.
Unfortunately, your neighbors also want a corporatist state.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 5538
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Andrew » 19 Apr 2017, 14:22

nicole wrote:
Mo wrote:
JasonL wrote:United is truly remarkable.
If it wasn't for Frontier, they'd be #1 (worst customer sat).
Frontier: the mistake you only make once
Hmm, I flew Frontier to and from Denver a few years ago and didn't notice anything. Perhaps my flights this year will reveal the issues.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

holy shit there will never be an end until the sweet release of death (as dictated by the death panels, natch) - lunch

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21006
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 19 Apr 2017, 14:25

Her whole thing is a reaction to the position that United is able to overbook at all, that they are able to do x or y. The fact that they can is nothing but good, the fact that they do is in significant part because of the revealed preference of their customer base. Other firms just do it better.

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9409
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Sandy » 19 Apr 2017, 14:28

"The problem is all the damn plebs flying." -plebs
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21006
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 19 Apr 2017, 14:29

I think Nicole has invented economic solipsism.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6796
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by fyodor » 19 Apr 2017, 14:35

Warren wrote:
fyodor wrote:
Warren wrote:Sorry I thought you were.
nicole wrote:Yeah, and I'm saying this is a terrible argument. The reason people want regulation is because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors.
But I guess you were trying to make a point about YOU and WE?

But then you're wrong. I see no evidence that the aggregate of people want regulation because they don't like the aggregate revealed preferences of their neighbors. People want property rights. If they pay for the seat, they're entitled to the seat.
But you're not paying for the seat in an unqualified manner, based on the actual terms of the contract. And that's what we get because that's what the airlines have found they can offer and still get people to pay.
What Aresen said.
And what I said.

Well, a lot of this is coming down to language. Thing is, people don't generally realize what the terms of their contract actually says. I'm sympathetic to the notion, unlike maybe my closer to decoder ring days of several years ago (thanks Grylliade!), that if something like 98% of customers understand a contract one way and lawyers understand it another way, maybe a judge should rule in favor of the 98% rather than the lawyers. I think that's in league with what Aresen was saying. Whether that makes Nicole "wrong" per se depends on how you're framing the current situation.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6796
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by fyodor » 19 Apr 2017, 14:45

nicole wrote:
fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:
fyodor wrote:
But you are part of the aggregate that is composed of you and your neighbors. When you and your neighbors is a very large number, what you personally want inevitably becomes a smaller factor.

At worst it seems to me you're complaining about messaging rather than the argument per se. There's definitely some unpacking to do when people don't recognize certainly aspects of how the market works, and I don't know if any of us knows the best wording for getting people to understand.

That said, I think rather than simply saying you want this, it might be a little better to stress the paradoxically aggregate nature of demand, as well as pointing out that what aggregate revealed preference tells business isn't only what customers want but also what customers are willing to put up with.
This.
Okay then. *I* think that's what McArdle means, I think she means "you" in the aggregate not "you" personally, but I can see how that can get lost! The main way what she said might apply to any one individual is the old well if you hate it so much you don't have to buy it that's implied.
Her *whole thing* was this cutesy dialogue about how you should stfu with your complaints. Her whole framing was, "no, actually, you want this." And no part of her framing was, "Yes, I'm sorry everyone is horrible, unfortunately we all have to deal with that, but it is extremely unfortunate."
Heh, well I wouldn't say that what I was saying in any way implies "everyone is horrible". But maybe you don't mean that literally? It's unfortunate, I suppose, that none of us can be assured of getting exactly what we want from the businesses we interact with, but is it really McArdle's responsibility to point that out to people? People should be aware that as things stand, their property rights to a seat on an airliner are very qualified (and then, most property rights are!), and the only way right now to not accept that part of the bargain is to not fly. Sure it would suck to never fly because of that, but it's hardly life or limb threatening. (A Grylliader refuses to fly because of other factors she considers impositions on her rights.)
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21098
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Mo » 19 Apr 2017, 14:49

JasonL wrote:Her whole thing is a reaction to the position that United is able to overbook at all, that they are able to do x or y. The fact that they can is nothing but good, the fact that they do is in significant part because of the revealed preference of their customer base. Other firms just do it better.
What's ignored is that the hue and cry to do something about overbooking was quiet until United unleashed the Chicago goon squad on them. And, to support nicole's point somewhat, the way the market has attempted superior service and failed is no fees and bigger seats rather than treating customers well. You can buy those things from legacy airline*, you've never been able to buy, "Don't worry, if something bad happens, we'll make sure to really take care of you." So it's not fair to say that the market has tried improving their service.

* And they continue to offer it, which indicates there is a market for it, just not one that will fill planes all the time.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7626
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by nicole » 19 Apr 2017, 14:58

fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:
fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:
fyodor wrote:
But you are part of the aggregate that is composed of you and your neighbors. When you and your neighbors is a very large number, what you personally want inevitably becomes a smaller factor.

At worst it seems to me you're complaining about messaging rather than the argument per se. There's definitely some unpacking to do when people don't recognize certainly aspects of how the market works, and I don't know if any of us knows the best wording for getting people to understand.

That said, I think rather than simply saying you want this, it might be a little better to stress the paradoxically aggregate nature of demand, as well as pointing out that what aggregate revealed preference tells business isn't only what customers want but also what customers are willing to put up with.
This.
Okay then. *I* think that's what McArdle means, I think she means "you" in the aggregate not "you" personally, but I can see how that can get lost! The main way what she said might apply to any one individual is the old well if you hate it so much you don't have to buy it that's implied.
Her *whole thing* was this cutesy dialogue about how you should stfu with your complaints. Her whole framing was, "no, actually, you want this." And no part of her framing was, "Yes, I'm sorry everyone is horrible, unfortunately we all have to deal with that, but it is extremely unfortunate."
Heh, well I wouldn't say that what I was saying in any way implies "everyone is horrible". But maybe you don't mean that literally? It's unfortunate, I suppose, that none of us can be assured of getting exactly what we want from the businesses we interact with, but is it really McArdle's responsibility to point that out to people? People should be aware that as things stand, their property rights to a seat on an airliner are very qualified (and then, most property rights are!), and the only way right now to not accept that part of the bargain is to not fly. Sure it would suck to never fly because of that, but it's hardly life or limb threatening. (A Grylliader refuses to fly because of other factors she considers impositions on her rights.)
I don't know why McArdle feels the need to give cover* for the insupportable nature of thrownness, but I of course think it's everyone's responsibility to point it out whenever it's relevant, and surely it's relevant to a discussion of massive negative reaction to a market outcome.

*As L-dub would say, "Well, the social order has to be working for *someone.*"
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6796
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by fyodor » 19 Apr 2017, 14:59

Mo wrote:
JasonL wrote:Her whole thing is a reaction to the position that United is able to overbook at all, that they are able to do x or y. The fact that they can is nothing but good, the fact that they do is in significant part because of the revealed preference of their customer base. Other firms just do it better.
What's ignored is that the hue and cry to do something about overbooking was quiet until United unleashed the Chicago goon squad on them. And, to support nicole's point somewhat, the way the market has attempted superior service and failed is no fees and bigger seats rather than treating customers well. You can buy those things from legacy airline*, you've never been able to buy, "Don't worry, if something bad happens, we'll make sure to really take care of you." So it's not fair to say that the market has tried improving their service.

* And they continue to offer it, which indicates there is a market for it, just not one that will fill planes all the time.
Very possibly the hive mind of the Grylliade could have come up with a better opinion piece than McArdle's. But make mine concurring if the majority wants to base market failure on hue and cry.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21006
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 19 Apr 2017, 15:27

nicole wrote:
fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:
fyodor wrote:
nicole wrote:
fyodor wrote:
But you are part of the aggregate that is composed of you and your neighbors. When you and your neighbors is a very large number, what you personally want inevitably becomes a smaller factor.

At worst it seems to me you're complaining about messaging rather than the argument per se. There's definitely some unpacking to do when people don't recognize certainly aspects of how the market works, and I don't know if any of us knows the best wording for getting people to understand.

That said, I think rather than simply saying you want this, it might be a little better to stress the paradoxically aggregate nature of demand, as well as pointing out that what aggregate revealed preference tells business isn't only what customers want but also what customers are willing to put up with.
This.
Okay then. *I* think that's what McArdle means, I think she means "you" in the aggregate not "you" personally, but I can see how that can get lost! The main way what she said might apply to any one individual is the old well if you hate it so much you don't have to buy it that's implied.
Her *whole thing* was this cutesy dialogue about how you should stfu with your complaints. Her whole framing was, "no, actually, you want this." And no part of her framing was, "Yes, I'm sorry everyone is horrible, unfortunately we all have to deal with that, but it is extremely unfortunate."
Heh, well I wouldn't say that what I was saying in any way implies "everyone is horrible". But maybe you don't mean that literally? It's unfortunate, I suppose, that none of us can be assured of getting exactly what we want from the businesses we interact with, but is it really McArdle's responsibility to point that out to people? People should be aware that as things stand, their property rights to a seat on an airliner are very qualified (and then, most property rights are!), and the only way right now to not accept that part of the bargain is to not fly. Sure it would suck to never fly because of that, but it's hardly life or limb threatening. (A Grylliader refuses to fly because of other factors she considers impositions on her rights.)
I don't know why McArdle feels the need to give cover* for the insupportable nature of thrownness, but I of course think it's everyone's responsibility to point it out whenever it's relevant, and surely it's relevant to a discussion of massive negative reaction to a market outcome.

*As L-dub would say, "Well, the social order has to be working for *someone.*"
A world without thrownness would not have better airlines.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21852
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Warren » 19 Apr 2017, 16:29

Please define "thrownness"
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
tr0g
Posts: 6450
Joined: 11 May 2011, 10:21
Location: At the shop

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by tr0g » 19 Apr 2017, 16:32

Warren wrote:Please define "thrownness"
Big show on HBO, Warren. Game of Thrownness. Very popular with the youth.
Yeah but how can you tell at a glance which junk a raccoon is packing? Also, gay raccoons? - Hugh Akston
Nothing you can say is as important as the existence of a functioning marketplace of ideas, go set yourself on fire. - JasonL

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 5538
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Andrew » 19 Apr 2017, 16:33

tr0g wrote:
Warren wrote:Please define "thrownness"
Big show on HBO, Warren. Game of Thrownness. Very popular with the youth.
Yutes?
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

holy shit there will never be an end until the sweet release of death (as dictated by the death panels, natch) - lunch

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21006
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 19 Apr 2017, 16:34

Heidegger's complaint that we don't choose to be here with the history and social context surrounding us at birth. We are thrown into life with unchosen burdens of family and nation and economy and whatnot.

Nicole, I believe takes that to be A if not THE salient feature of moral existence. I think it unimportant bordering on trivial in the philosophical sense.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17464
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 19 Apr 2017, 16:43

JasonL wrote:Heidegger's complaint that we don't choose to be here with the history and social context surrounding us at birth. We are thrown into life with unchosen burdens of family and nation and economy and whatnot.

Nicole, I believe takes that to be A if not THE salient feature of moral existence. I think it unimportant bordering on trivial in the philosophical sense.
Heidegger stole that insight from Howard the Duck.

It's clear as a matter of positive law that one inherits certain unalienable burdens just by being born in a certain time and place, but it's by no means clear that any of those burdens are morally imposed.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6796
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by fyodor » 19 Apr 2017, 17:31

"Into this house we're born, into this world we're thrown"

Apparently Morrison took a class on Heidegger, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness (though they got the lyrics a little wrong there)

I take it (or at least Nicole) to mean that we're at the mercy of circumstances beyond our control (at least to some degree).
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21852
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Warren » 19 Apr 2017, 17:59

JasonL wrote:Heidegger's complaint that we don't choose to be here with the history and social context surrounding us at birth. We are thrown into life with unchosen burdens of family and nation and economy and whatnot.

Nicole, I believe takes that to be A if not THE salient feature of moral existence. I think it unimportant bordering on trivial in the philosophical sense.
roger roger
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6796
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by fyodor » 19 Apr 2017, 19:17

I think one can look at throwness as something beyond mere time and place to a framing of the very nature of our given circumstances as being something that's beyond our control.

Some things are within our control, and some things are not....
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21006
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by JasonL » 19 Apr 2017, 19:58

That doesn't make it any less baffling to me. I mean we aren't infinite beings of unconstrained choice above physics and history and duh?

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 13130
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Fly the Friendly Skies...

Post by Aresen » 19 Apr 2017, 20:01

JasonL wrote:That doesn't make it any less baffling to me. I mean we aren't infinite beings of unconstrained choice above physics and history and duh?
Speak for yourself. :P
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest