Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Unintended consequences of stupid government regulation

Unintended consequences of stupid government regulation
Thread Tools
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 12:21 AM
 
Exhibit A:

Continental Will Cancel Flights To Avoid Fines For Late Takeoffs

Starting next month, airlines delayed over 3 hours where passengers can't disembark will be fined a hefty $27,500 per passenger. Continental CEO Jeff Smisek said that to get around the fines, they'll just cancel the whole flight entirely. See, you can't fine a flight for not taking off on-time if the flight doesn't exist anymore. [AP]
Continental Will Cancel Flights To Avoid Fines For Late Takeoffs - The Consumerist

The government needs to f*cking stay out of businesses business.
Whatever they do, they'll make it worse.

Exhibit B:

Fair Credit Act - makes credit more expensive and unavailable

Had a Citi credit card for 17(!!!) years with no fees, and only occasional charges that I paid of right away.
Well, due to all the onerous regulation of the Fait Credit Act, they Citi now starts charging $60 maintenance fees per year. Awesome. Now I just lost the oldest credit card on my credit history.

Thanks, Obama.

-t
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 01:10 AM
 
Who says it's unintended?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 01:50 AM
 
Uhm, yeah.

-t
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 03:47 AM
 
You make it sound like flights never get canceled.


Unintended consequences of exploding national defense budget.

Iraq War
Afghanistan War
Over $1 trillion gone missing from defense budget
$5000 toilets
$500 nails
Over $2 billion for fighter jets that will never be used, F-22 fighter jet anyone?
So on and on and on
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 03:54 AM
 
The key question is, did the legislation really force credit card companies to introduce new annual fees, or was it merely a convenient pretext for them to do so in order to gain more revenue than they were collecting from all the penalties they imposed on people prior to the new law? I am among the first to criticize this administration and Congress, but in truth the new credit card regulations do seem rather reasonable. Btw, so far no one I've heard from personally has been hit with new annual fees.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 08:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
You make it sound like flights never get canceled.


Unintended consequences of exploding national defense budget.

Iraq War
Afghanistan War
Over $1 trillion gone missing from defense budget
$5000 toilets
$500 nails
Over $2 billion for fighter jets that will never be used, F-22 fighter jet anyone?
So on and on and on
You make it sound like we never go to war.

Of course, the Defense budget doesn't hold a candle to the incredible waste and spending abuses found elsewhere.
- $600 for a $5 bottle of Tylenol
- $500 for surgical tools produced in Mexico costing $5
- $1,000 toothbrush
... and so on...
ebuddy
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 08:50 AM
 
The reason most airlines have unacceptably late flights is that they over-schedule and really can't meet their schedules except in ideal conditions-which are rare. The regulation appears to have the effect of directly impacting the mechanism that causes scheduled flights to be late.

The Fair Credit act is similar-instead of credit card companies cutting corners and screwing users, people who don't have wonderfully glowing credit histories find it more difficult to get credit. I'm not saying this is good for everyone, only that it directly impacts the low-ball credit companies that have an inordinate rate of "screw the customers" actions in their histories.

The "government waste" examples above mostly come from the government's use of contractors instead of having real procurement people on staff. So it's more "stupid contracting" than "stupid purchasing." Same effect, different root cause. Public service does not always attract the "best and brightest." Often it's where new people get their starts and older people finish careers, so you have "youthful enthusiasm" which fails to take reality into account (and lacks any healthy skepticism) working hand in hand with "being too tired to care too much." A great example is the VA's health care system. They have a "great" way to contain costs for prescriptions, with real competitive bidding to supply certain medications, but they also have a very limited pharmacopoeia, so they often dispense 50mg tablets and a pill splitter with dosage instructions that say "take half a pill daily." This is fine except with more advanced meds that have special coatings that affect how they are absorbed... Not enough "will this work in all situations?" investigation, and not enough "how many pwople will this negatively impact?" concern going on there.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 08:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
The key question is, did the legislation really force credit card companies to introduce new annual fees, or was it merely a convenient pretext for them to do so in order to gain more revenue than they were collecting from all the penalties they imposed on people prior to the new law? I am among the first to criticize this administration and Congress, but in truth the new credit card regulations do seem rather reasonable. Btw, so far no one I've heard from personally has been hit with new annual fees.
It's pretty clear to me: credit card companies lost one stream of revenue (late fees, high APR) and replace it with another.
Whoever thought that government could use regulation to make the banks just stop making money is deceived.

Me, as a customer with no balances will now pay for those customers that carry a balance.

Typical Obama: make everybody pay for the "sins"/problems of a few.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 12:11 PM
 
Personally, if I'm on a flight that's been delayed for over 3 hours ... I'd much rather they cancel it than have me sitting on the tarmac for all that time. That way I can make other arrangements. Before they essentially held passengers hostage in this situation because A) they didn't want to make the trip back to the gate, and B) anyone who got off the plane was going to result in potentially lost revenue if they demanded a refund.

I think you have got it all twisted here. The intent of the legislation wasn't to stick it to the airlines financially. The intent was to force the airlines to let you off the freaking plane when they know good and damned well that the flight isn't going anywhere. Also, this only applied to those flights where the passengers had already gotten on the plane. It had nothing to do with delays where the passengers are still waiting at the gate. So if Continental would rather load a plane up and then cancel the flight altogether when they realize that it will be more than a 3 hour delay then that's certainly reasonable for the airline and the passengers involved.

OAW
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 12:33 PM
 
Can you imagine what the credit card companies would be like with no government regulation?

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 12:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Can you imagine what the credit card companies would be like with no government regulation?
Wrong question.

Can you imagine what the credit card companies would be like with people living within their means ?

Is going into debt and then having the government "bail you out" by regulations a God-given right ?

-t
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The intent was to force the airlines to let you off the freaking plane when they know good and damned well that the flight isn't going anywhere.
Agreed, find some other way to assign takeoff order rather than creating tarmac traffic jam. I was stuck for 4 hours once in DC on a plane waiting in line to get deiced and ready to fly. If they'd cancelled it it would have lost it's place in line... but why did it actually have to be on the runway 10 planes deep to be in line?
( Last edited by andi*pandi; Mar 12, 2010 at 06:19 PM. )
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 01:49 PM
 
Many people aren't going to live within their means and the credit card companies are going to prey on this weakness.

No amount of government regulation is going to fix either of these problems.

I'm not sure what your complaint is. How do we solve the problem of people living outside of their means?

And how do these new regulations bail out anyone? None of it retroactively applies to anything as far as I know, and none of it will really end up helping someone who wants to screw themselves by racking up massive piles of debt.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Many people aren't going to live within their means and the credit card companies are going to prey on this weakness.
Then let them suffer.

Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
No amount of government regulation is going to fix either of these problems.
I agree. No amount of government regulation is going to fix *ANYTHING*.
It's just gonna shift stuff around until someone finds a way around it.

Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
I'm not sure what your complaint is. How do we solve the problem of people living outside of their means?
We don't have to solve it, we need to let those people fail, go bankrupt, if necessary lose their homes.

People need to be responsible for their actions and pay the price.
I don't want the government to take the money from the responsible people and give it to the irresponsible. Yet, that's exactly what's happening with all the bailouts.

-t
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 02:03 PM
 
Jiminy christmas. Without government regulations of any kind we would all be working 80 hours a week and owe our entire lives to the company store.

There would be two companies left and we would all be vaporized in the great Pepsi/Coke war of 2017.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Jiminy christmas. Without government regulations of any kind we would all be working 80 hours a week and owe our entire lives to the company store.

There would be two companies left and we would all be vaporized in the great Pepsi/Coke war of 2017.
BS.

The US was the wealthiest with the highest overall standard of living in the 50s / 60s, when we DID NOT have the host of regulations. Since then, the wealth was taken from the middle class and shifted to corporations and the few rich. Do you think it's a coincidence that increased regulation caused the middle class to shrink ?

Entrepreneurs and opportunity made this country great, not regulation.

-t
     
mattyb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Standing on the shoulders of giants
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Can you imagine what the credit card companies would be like with people living within their means ?
They'd go out of business because everyone would pay off their bills without having to pay any credit.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Exhibit B:

Fair Credit Act - makes credit more expensive and unavailable

Had a Citi credit card for 17(!!!) years with no fees, and only occasional charges that I paid of right away.
Well, due to all the onerous regulation of the Fait Credit Act, they Citi now starts charging $60 maintenance fees per year. Awesome. Now I just lost the oldest credit card on my credit history.

Thanks, Obama.

-t
I understand your frustration with this, but I wonder if you are assuming that the Fair Credit Act is the cause of Citi's change. Just because one action follows another doesn't necessarily mean that the former caused the latter. The reason why I say this is because even prior to the Fair Credit Act there were plenty of stories of people like you in this situation. People who signed up for cards specifically because they had no annual fees. They didn't concern themselves with the higher interest rates because they never carried a balance. Either because they always paid it off or because they rarely used it and kept the card around for emergency purposes. Well the credit card companies would often cancel their cards because their business model is to entice people up front with the "no annual fee" feature but then make their profits on the back end by charging the high interest rates. So those people didn't fit into that mold were often kicked to the curb in favor of those who did.

Having said that, even if this is the result of the new regulations, that's not the fault of the regulation ... it's the fault of the lobbyists from the credit card industry and their minions in Congress that effectively watered down the regulation. The point of the legislation is to protect consumers from the arbitrary and unscrupulous practices of the credit card industry. And that's a good thing. The credit card industry can make plenty of money because as you indicated, plenty of people live beyond their means. But jacking up people's interest rates by over 20% because a payment came in a day late is a tad bit over the top n'est-ce pas? But as is typical, the lobbyists ensured that there would be some loopholes in the legislation. So now that they can't do arbitrary interest rate hikes ... they can impose annual fees to offset that lost revenue. The better approach would have been to disallow that foolishness as well. If you signed up for a card with no annual fee then that's what you should get if you have abided by the terms of the agreement. They shouldn't be allowed to change that on you just because they freaking feel like it. If they don't want to do that anymore then fine ... they can cancel your account. But you should be notified and given a certain amount of time (e.g. 6 - 12 months) to find another card (if that is your choice) ... with the card still operating under the terms you agreed to during that time.

Bottom line? I think Big Mac has hit the nail on the head. The new regulations are by no means "onerous". The credit card companies are simply looking for another way to get over. Perhaps the direction of your ire is misplaced?

OAW
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 02:54 PM
 
I'd say there's a pretty high correlation between the availability of cheap, easy credit and the willingness of people to live beyond their means. I don't know that anyone would be able to create an incentive structure that would both encourage people to live within their means, and provide cheap credit.

I also just canceled my Citibank card due to the new fee. Meh. Good riddance. Between my wife and me, we have cards from 3 other banks that didn't impose annual fees. We still carry those cards, and unlike Citibank, they will continue to have the opportunity to profit off our transactions. Ain't competition grand?

Citi is just trying to wring unsustainable profit margin growth from a tired business model that won't support it, any way they can. If enough people cancel due to the fees, they'll look for another way to do it. The Fair Credit Act is just trying to ensure those actions are above the table rather than below it. It'll be interesting to see how successful it is, and what kinds of shenanigans the banks come up with next. It's a cat-and-mouse game that will probably never end, kind of like the Palm Pre-Apple-iTunes saga...
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
BS.

The US was the wealthiest with the highest overall standard of living in the 50s / 60s, when we DID NOT have the host of regulations. Since then, the wealth was taken from the middle class and shifted to corporations and the few rich. Do you think it's a coincidence that increased regulation caused the middle class to shrink ?

Entrepreneurs and opportunity made this country great, not regulation.

-t
I think it's way more complicated then that...

It was way harder to outsource jobs, there were no computers or manufacturing robots so raw human manpower was more in demand, we had just come out of a war, which typically brings a big economic boon... etc... etc...

We had even less regulation in the 30s and it sucked.
( Last edited by ort888; Mar 12, 2010 at 06:00 PM. )

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 07:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
I think it's way more complicated then that...

It was way harder to outsource jobs, there were no computers or manufacturing robots so raw human manpower was more in demand, we had just come out of a war, which typically brings a big economic boon... etc... etc...

We had even less regulation in the 30s and it sucked.
What about the 1920s? we nearly had a depression at the beginning of the 20s but the government didn't respond with massive new regulations increasing taxes. They responded by reducing the tax burden, getting out of the way and letting the economy grow.

The 1930s began with an expansion of government and increase in regulation in direct response to an economic downturn. The government made a bad situation into a horrible one.

It's a similar situation to what we have now, in economic downturn met with massive government expansion, a massive increase in government spending, and redoubling of efforts to control and micro manage businesses. All because of this mistaken notion that if they just try harder and exert more control, they can somehow stop the normal economic cycle. Either that or they're just trying not to "let a good crisis go to waste" and using this economic downturn as an excuse for a massive power grab.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 07:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Wrong question.

Can you imagine what the credit card companies would be like with people living within their means ?

Is going into debt and then having the government "bail you out" by regulations a God-given right ?

-t

Could you imagine what reality would be like if people were smart enough to do just that, and that the people that weren't didn't affect us?
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
We had even less regulation in the 30s and it sucked.
Err, the 30s sucked because people got stupid and greedy in the 20s and gambled recklessly in the stock market, just like other bubbles we had later.

Plus, the 30s sucked because the f*cking government debased the $, undermine dthe gold standard, confiscated gold and put in place a first wave of stupid regulations that made things worse and prolonged the necessary correction.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 10:21 PM
 
So people will not be greedy and stupid now because we live in an enlightened age?
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So people will not be greedy and stupid now because we live in an enlightened age?
No, I didn't say that.

I said the government needs to stop pretending that *THEY* could fix it.

People either get it or don't. If they don't, they just don't, and live a miserable life.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2010, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
No, I didn't say that.

I said the government needs to stop pretending that *THEY* could fix it.

People either get it or don't. If they don't, they just don't, and live a miserable life.

-t

I really don't understand what fuels these constant rants of yours, turtle, they are frankly pretty bizarre.

Nobody on the left nor right thinks that they can "control" every aspect of the economy, at least nobody sane excluding the weird fringe dudes that want to ban salt or whatever. There is no perfect amount of regulation, it is never perfectly fair, it is a constant struggle between finding sensible levels of regulation, nobody has ever said that this is easy.

However, some amount of regulation needs to exist to prevent legalized fraud and abuse, and some amount of regulation is needed to ensure that the economic engine continues to run smoothly. Regulation is not intended to *replace* or encroach upon the free market with some form of socialism, but simply to prevent fraud and abuse.

Am I being sensible? You tend to go on with your anti-government tirades I'm not sure that you acknowledge the fact that we're better off with some amount of sensible regulation?

If so, the only real disagreement seems to be on what constitutes fraud and abuse, and how much of this fraud and abuse is necessary.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2010, 09:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
…the only real disagreement seems to be on what constitutes fraud and abuse, and how much of this fraud and abuse is necessary.
I agree, this is the crux of this argument. The problem is that many of you have a very…well, "liberal" opinion of what exactly constitutes fraud and abuse. Way too liberal for me (then again who isn't?).

In the spirit of keeping on topic, let's take the OP's examples. I'm not an expert on these two issues but from what I do know, it seems that the government is attempting to mandate good service. They have no business telling the airlines how to handle their flight delays. Now, if there was some sort of written agreement, guarantee or something along those lines and the airlines weren't upholding them that is different and should be dealt with. As far as I can tell, in this situation caveat emptor seems to apply.

The same applies to credit card companies. The government likewise has no business telling companies how to handle their interest rates. If people don't like the rates, they can stop using the damn things. Period. They should've read the fine print. How is this fraud or abuse? As long as the companies are adhering to whatever agreements they made and there has been no attempt to conceal the details from the customer what is the problem?

Same with the billing statement. Why should the credit card company be responsible for telling people how long it takes to pay of their balance? The only real benefit to laws like these is a political one for those who pass them for "sticking it" to the big mean corporations.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2010, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I really don't understand what fuels these constant rants of yours, turtle, they are frankly pretty bizarre.

Nobody on the left nor right thinks that they can "control" every aspect of the economy, at least nobody sane excluding the weird fringe dudes that want to ban salt or whatever. There is no perfect amount of regulation, it is never perfectly fair, it is a constant struggle between finding sensible levels of regulation, nobody has ever said that this is easy.

However, some amount of regulation needs to exist to prevent legalized fraud and abuse, and some amount of regulation is needed to ensure that the economic engine continues to run smoothly. Regulation is not intended to *replace* or encroach upon the free market with some form of socialism, but simply to prevent fraud and abuse.

Am I being sensible? You tend to go on with your anti-government tirades I'm not sure that you acknowledge the fact that we're better off with some amount of sensible regulation?
You're sensible sure, but who's opposed to sensible regulation? The complaint here is regulation that did not employ enough sense to consider implications.

The reason there should be a great deal of caution when proposing regulations IMO is that, regardless of their suggested merit, always create a new relationship between government and corporation. This relationship tends to eventually pick winners and losers; those who can afford numerous attorneys from those who cannot. This is most apparent in our ridiculously complex tax code. The largest business (and employer) in this country is the government. I think the era of pointing at corporations as if they're the most in need of regulation is old hat. IMO we need to focus more on regulating government.

IMO the complaint is that the government/big business relationship only continues to grow. This is not anti-government, this is anti-huge government. I think it's unfair to regard those who oppose the centralization of the lions share of our economy as "fringe". Others seem to point more directly at corporations when they are merely playing by the rules set for them by the government. They are viewed as greedy (3.3% profit margin of health insurers for example) and in need of additional regulation while the ever-growing portion of our income is either going directly to, or affected by the government. i.e. The skyrocketing costs of "Big University"; more unintended consequences of stupid government policy.

If so, the only real disagreement seems to be on what constitutes fraud and abuse, and how much of this fraud and abuse is necessary.
I think the disagreement is more about what will eliminate the most fraud and abuse and who we empower to get started.
ebuddy
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2010, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
BS.

The US was the wealthiest with the highest overall standard of living in the 50s / 60s, when we DID NOT have the host of regulations. Since then, the wealth was taken from the middle class and shifted to corporations and the few rich. Do you think it's a coincidence that increased regulation caused the middle class to shrink ?

Entrepreneurs and opportunity made this country great, not regulation.

-t
During the 50s and 60s, at least some companies had something called "corporate ethics." That quaint habit seems to have died out.

And unregulated entrepreneurs have done some of the most horrendous damage in our nation's entire commercial history. Look at Carnegie. Look at Rockefeller. Look at Morgan. ALL of their "good deeds" came after they plundered, raped, and pillaged. Carnegie's charity came after he realized that he had ground into the dirt the very resource that made him obscenely wealthy-his employees. Rockefeller and Morgan both, not being stupid, saw the writing on the walls and behaved as if they were particularly humanistic when they both have particularly unpleasant histories when it comes to dealing with labor and the market.

What regulation "should be" as far as I'm concerned, is a set of rules and referees that make for a fair and competitive marketplace where the biggest companies cannot roll over the smallest simply because of their size, and where labor is able to effectively advocate for safe working conditions and reasonable wages and benefits. Instead we have a mish-mash of rules that are a mix of "The Jungle" and playground regulations, and "referees" who wouldn't last 5 minutes monitoring a high school basketball game. The kicker of this is that we, the public, are ultimately responsible for the mess. That's because we elect the people who write the rules and put the referees in place, and we don't tend to choose very good people to do these jobs.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2010, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Am I being sensible? You tend to go on with your anti-government tirades I'm not sure that you acknowledge the fact that we're better off with some amount of sensible regulation?
I can't speak for turtle, but I'm definitely for sensible regulation.

The issue is that what seems sensible rarely comes out to be so.

Let's use the late takeoff fine as an example.

My understanding is you can you can trace this back to when it was mandated that airlines start reporting their "on-time" statistics.

Eminently reasonable, correct? The airlines weren't really forced to do anything except for disseminate information they already had. I don't think anyone involved in the conversation here believes it's bad for consumers to have this information.

What was the result of this eminently reasonable law? Well the system put into place was gamed by the airlines. You leave the gate "on-time" you're marked as "on-time", even if you have to wait 12 hours on the tarmac.

An eminently reasonable solution would be to change the accounting, so "on-time" statistics represent actual information. Well, still waiting on that. How long has it been since they started reporting the statistics? Ten years? Fifteen years? Twenty?

Why is this? The airlines like the system just how it is, so they have lobbyists fighting to keep it that way. To be fair to them, why should they change? As Glenn mentioned, there's an infrastructure issue. Why should the airlines penalize themselves for this? The airlines hold up their side of the bargain. They pay their leases. They have enough planes to accommodate the traffic. They get people on the plane and get the plane out of the terminal, on-time.

So, what we have now is another law that won't work, getting pasted onto the law we have, which also doesn't work.

How much "reasonableness" do we have to take before it's okay to get suspicious?
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2010, 01:41 PM
 
The problem is, what disguises itself as regulation today is nothing else but an elaborate scheme to hand Wall Street more money and keep competition down.

Why do I say that ?

Regulation has already become so complicated that small companies and startups have almost no way of complying with it. Only the big companies can afford to host central overhead structures just to comply. And guess what: big companies and firms don't mind more regulation: it weeds out small and innovative competition.

More regulation will give more power to the big guns, and create monopolistic structures.

Really, all you regulation-loving Democrats don't understand how you are being played by big business, which bought off politicians.

-t
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2010, 09:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I understand your frustration with this, but I wonder if you are assuming that the Fair Credit Act is the cause of Citi's change. Just because one action follows another doesn't necessarily mean that the former caused the latter.


Right.

They're related. Duh.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2010, 10:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The problem is, what disguises itself as regulation today is nothing else but an elaborate scheme to hand Wall Street more money and keep competition down.

Why do I say that ?

Regulation has already become so complicated that small companies and startups have almost no way of complying with it. Only the big companies can afford to host central overhead structures just to comply. And guess what: big companies and firms don't mind more regulation: it weeds out small and innovative competition.

More regulation will give more power to the big guns, and create monopolistic structures.

Really, all you regulation-loving Democrats don't understand how you are being played by big business, which bought off politicians.

-t
Absolutely correct sir. Regulation nearly always favors the big guys and hurts the little guys.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2010, 01:09 AM
 
Being a frequent flier and working at an aviation service company, I hear a lot of crap about delays. There's two distinct types of delays: the routine and the exceptional. In a broad sense they're both the result of a lack of coordination.

Routine delays are the result of overscheduling, which results in the every day delays of typically less than an hour. Yes, the FAA and ATCSCC can and should work to improve volume capacity, but there's still a limit to it. Slot limits at the least worst solution (gate limits make irrops even worse), but auctioning them off for money just raises fares to enrich the PA. I like the idea of a capacity auction (whoever bids that they'll fly the most seats gets the slot) redone annually the best.

This regulation puts an end to exceptional delays after they've left the gate; the airlines (from management down to ramp staff) will go to great lengths to avoid a fine that averages about $4MM. It forces to the airlines to shift toward a few things I think are good ideas anyway: better contingency plans (for when they do have a plane that has been away from the gate for 2:45), more preboarding delays (don't board until you're much more sure you can go), and a few more cancellations. Yes, more cancellations are good. I'd like to see the fine reduced by about an order of magnitude; yes spending 3-8 extra hours on a plane is bad, but people regularly spend that much time on a plane voluntarily (and if you're sick like me, enjoy it) and $400k is a lot of motivation (more than an order of magnitude over the average revenue or costs for a flight).
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2010, 01:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
During the 50s and 60s, at least some companies had something called "corporate ethics." That quaint habit seems to have died out.

And unregulated entrepreneurs have done some of the most horrendous damage in our nation's entire commercial history. Look at Carnegie. Look at Rockefeller. Look at Morgan. ALL of their "good deeds" came after they plundered, raped, and pillaged. Carnegie's charity came after he realized that he had ground into the dirt the very resource that made him obscenely wealthy-his employees. Rockefeller and Morgan both, not being stupid, saw the writing on the walls and behaved as if they were particularly humanistic when they both have particularly unpleasant histories when it comes to dealing with labor and the market.

What regulation "should be" as far as I'm concerned, is a set of rules and referees that make for a fair and competitive marketplace where the biggest companies cannot roll over the smallest simply because of their size, and where labor is able to effectively advocate for safe working conditions and reasonable wages and benefits. Instead we have a mish-mash of rules that are a mix of "The Jungle" and playground regulations, and "referees" who wouldn't last 5 minutes monitoring a high school basketball game. The kicker of this is that we, the public, are ultimately responsible for the mess. That's because we elect the people who write the rules and put the referees in place, and we don't tend to choose very good people to do these jobs.
Once again, a correct assessment.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2010, 06:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Err, the 30s sucked because people got stupid and greedy in the 20s and gambled recklessly in the stock market, just like other bubbles we had later.

Plus, the 30s sucked because the f*cking government debased the $, undermine dthe gold standard, confiscated gold and put in place a first wave of stupid regulations that made things worse and prolonged the necessary correction.

-t
Yup, contrast FDR's Great Depression with the Depression no one ever heard of, from 1920.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2010, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Being a frequent flier and working at an aviation service company, I hear a lot of crap about delays. There's two distinct types of delays: the routine and the exceptional. In a broad sense they're both the result of a lack of coordination.

Routine delays are the result of overscheduling, which results in the every day delays of typically less than an hour. Yes, the FAA and ATCSCC can and should work to improve volume capacity, but there's still a limit to it. Slot limits at the least worst solution (gate limits make irrops even worse), but auctioning them off for money just raises fares to enrich the PA. I like the idea of a capacity auction (whoever bids that they'll fly the most seats gets the slot) redone annually the best.

This regulation puts an end to exceptional delays after they've left the gate; the airlines (from management down to ramp staff) will go to great lengths to avoid a fine that averages about $4MM. It forces to the airlines to shift toward a few things I think are good ideas anyway: better contingency plans (for when they do have a plane that has been away from the gate for 2:45), more preboarding delays (don't board until you're much more sure you can go), and a few more cancellations. Yes, more cancellations are good. I'd like to see the fine reduced by about an order of magnitude; yes spending 3-8 extra hours on a plane is bad, but people regularly spend that much time on a plane voluntarily (and if you're sick like me, enjoy it) and $400k is a lot of motivation (more than an order of magnitude over the average revenue or costs for a flight).
Excellent explanation. Perhaps after showing a major improvement in both routine and exceptional delays, the industry can demonstrate to Congress and the FAA that lower fines are appropriate. But I think the suits in the airline corporate offices needed to have their butts kicked to the tune of $4MM a few times to get the message.

EVERYBODY should know when things are so backed up that waiting hours in line to take off is a bad thing. It's not just a hassle, it's not just a pain in the ass, it's a major problem. If the suits can't understand how stale the air gets in an aircraft that is sitting behind 10 others in line on the taxiway, if they can't understand how uncomfortable sitting in a barely moving aircraft without being allowed to go to the bathroom for a few hours is, they certainly can understand a hit on their bottom line-and they will take serious action to make changes to avoid those hits.

I agree that routine delays aren't a major problem, but I think it's important for airlines to prioritize their operations, so a short delay in boarding and departing the gate would be preferred to making the scheduled time for departing the gate and winding up with an exceptional on-the-ground wait delay. And more intelligent, more realistic scheduling - with fewer flights on the schedule based on real airport capacity - is a smart way to get there.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2010, 12:52 PM
 
The problem is also that the FAA operates with stone-age equipment and technology.

WTF does Obama not use the stimulus money to get at least that fixed ?

-t
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2010, 03:02 PM
 
Because there's far too much pork for Congress to buy instead.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2010, 09:19 PM
 
In part, the FAA uses older equipment that's (supposed to be) "proven technology." For example, for literally decades, controllers used a communication control system that was designed and built in the 1950s (I cannot remember its name). This was superseded by a system that (gasp!) used discrete electronic components rather than relays in the 1980s. I did not make a mistake with those numbers. The 1980s system, called the "OJ-314" was in use in many facilities as late as 2003, when it was replaced by a computerized system called ETVS. Why? All these systems worked. Of course when the oldest system went down, it took quite a lot of brain power to figure out what happened and how to fix it. When the OJ went down it was almost always a control or selector card in the tower cab itself, and these were fairly easily swapped out. The ETVS is much easier to support, often indicating the failed assembly without much fuss at all.

Now if there's a big plane crash that involves failure of those expensive but aged computers that coordinate between radar control stations nationwide, maybe Congress could do something useful about the problem. But they won't because the system "just works," rocky though that may be.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2010, 06:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Because there's far too much pork for Congress to buy instead.
Pork accounts for only a couple of percentage points of our annual budget, but it's an easy target for those who need easy targets.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2010, 06:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Pork accounts for only a couple of percentage points of our annual budget, but it's an easy target for those who need easy targets.
Wouldn't that be a great place to start shaving unnecessary expenditure? It's an easy target for a reason.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2010, 06:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Wouldn't that be a great place to start shaving unnecessary expenditure? It's an easy target for a reason.

It would be, but it's rather odd how some conservatives really focus on and get worked up over relative drops in the bucket? This isn't to say that everything doesn't count, but for a party that prides themselves on being good with saving money what's with the obsession over things like tort reform for medical malpractice, and other such small potatoes?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2010, 12:36 PM
 
I'm waiting for the consequences of The 0bama admin and the Dems in the quest to 'change' everything.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2010, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Wouldn't that be a great place to start shaving unnecessary expenditure? It's an easy target for a reason.
No, it's an easy target for those who don't really know where their money is being spent, and who pick up on buzzwords, because they're gullible, and they need something to talk about around the water cooler.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2010, 07:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It would be, but it's rather odd how some conservatives really focus on and get worked up over relative drops in the bucket? This isn't to say that everything doesn't count, but for a party that prides themselves on being good with saving money what's with the obsession over things like tort reform for medical malpractice, and other such small potatoes?
What exactly are the health care cost implications of tort litigation? In other words, what impact does the status quo have on health care costs?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2010, 07:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
No, it's an easy target for those who don't really know where their money is being spent, and who pick up on buzzwords, because they're gullible, and they need something to talk about around the water cooler.
I know for certain the lion's share of our money is spent on entitlements. So... eliminating all entitlements is an easier target?

Pork is one of those "low-hanging" fruit issues because of the wealth of absurd projects being funded like $18 million to build a website for example, making it a much easier target for reform than taking gramma's power scooter away or denying someone treatment for restless leg syndrome.
ebuddy
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:29 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,