New Wave Outpost Forum

by **stella** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:03 am

I think I first heard the term deregulation from Ronald Reagan. Every president since has more or less pushed the whole free market thing and this set us up for what we’re getting now. The theory that competition in a free market would lower prices for essential goods and services had already been proven wrong in the years before the great depression. The Industrial Revolution brought great wealth to this country concentrated in the hands of a few, it did not trickle down to the people, it made slaves of the people and the results were and are predictable. None the less we continue to embrace deregulation..

Interstate banking regulations, designed to prevent a second collapse of our banking system, were one of the first to go, followed by the postal service, telecommunications, energy and medical services. Regulation broke up monopolies and controlled prices for essential services and products. Deregulation allowed Enron to scam California, deregulation provides obscene profits to big oil and raises prices at the pump, deregulation put a bunch of high paid bean counters between you and your doctor and if you pay attention you will see all those old monopolies reforming and those old robber barons smiling in their graves.

by **hutter** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:57 am

The shit you're spouting is hardline Socialist/Marxist doctrine, and even some NAZI econ theory too.

So what are we all supposed to do? Just deep-six the industrial revolution and go back to individual subsistence farming?

You must really hate your fellow man, because your idiotic ideas, if carried out, would starve about 5 billion people.

<a href="http://electricdreams71.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">My Blog: ElectricDreams</a>

by **2Nu** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:04 am

Man hutter, I really wish you would sit back and better formulate your responses cause they really come off more as non sensical rhetorical bluster given the rather cogent post made by stella.

I for one can personally attest to the utter devastation wrought on the Airline industry since 1978 (one of Carter's BIGGEST economic policy blunders)

For the better part of my 25 years in the industry, I saw one iconic aircarrier after another (National, Republic, Frontier, Braniff I-II & II, Pan Am, Eastern, TWA etc..) crumble in the face of the economic turmoil created by the free market economy.

We are now left with what will soon be an airline oligarchy which has displaced countless workers, bankrupted their pension funds as well as severly limiting the travelling public's ability to travel freely and directly between points A & B.

Don't even get me started on 'merger mania' which took off under Reagan's watch and how it has left us with fewer financial, healthcare, energy, manufacturing institutions and choices et-cetera.

<IMG SRC="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/richp62/Icons%20Avatars/inot.gif">
I'm firmly of the belief that we have become hapless citizens of <a href="http://www.starbase118.net/academy/library/alien/frules.htm" target="blank">"'Ferenginar'"</a>.

by **phillyidol** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:38 am

FEUDALISM RULES![:D]

by **hutter** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:08 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by 2Nu[/i]
 Man hutter, I really wish you would sit back and better formulate your responses cause they really come off more as non sensical rhetorical bluster given the rather cogent post made by stella.
[/quote]
Dude, You can lay down the bong now. 4/20 was over days ago.

BTW: It's cheaper to fly NOW than it ever was during Jimmy Carter's reign.

<a href="http://electricdreams71.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">My Blog: ElectricDreams</a>

by **Frau_Blucher** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:08 am

I'm not surprised at hutter's angst. It's harsh rhetoric in response to the same sort of rhetoric isn't it?! This sort of drawing of random conclusions from irrelevant references is quickly becoming a stella signature. She has the worst sort of extremist liberal AND conservative disease of staking a hip-sounding position that is ultimately just a collection of disjointed ideas or ideals, created soley to make those that agree with her nod the smug nod of weak-minded dupes.

Deregulation as most people understand it today is a phenomenon of fairly recent times, likely around only since the early '70s. What relevance the Industrial Revolution of over a hundred years ago has to this topic isn't clear, although it's deemed somehow buzzworthy by stella. I would love some elucidation. What are you proposing as a better solution? Going back to Regulation, where the the regulatory agencies were in bed with the regulated? That's not so different than now, where Congress is in bed with the Unregulated. Or are you inferring that we need to crack down on Congress to press forward more Liberalization, a sort of enlightened Regulation where fair trade laws are enacted and enforced as a framework over an otherwise Deregulated economy, an economy where the costs of transactions as well as actions and their consequences are fully weighted? I'd be all for trying that, despite it being tough to do unilaterally in a world full of predatory and unregulated trade partners. Such regulation and enforcement is on the rise today, like Sarbanes-Oxley which is a fact of daily life for anyone in big business.

Whatever the case, I'm pretty sure that the "theory" that competition in a free market is beneficial has held true for a long time, and it's likely why you're eating food for pennies, typing on a cheap computer, enjoying the luxuries of industrial and technological revolutions, and ONLY paying $3 for gas. The Depression wasn't brought about by free trade for chrissakes. It was quite the opposite. Restrictive trade policies were in fact a huge culprit. Add to that restrictive monetary policies, speculation with lent monies, bad tax policies, bad banking practices and a host of other reasons. And certainly an uneven distribution of wealth and income was a contributor, and it's a factor that's worrisomely extant today as is a Congress that is shirking its duties for the almightly Buck. But again, I'm not sure of the linkages to your Deregulation topic and your train of, um, ahem, thought.

A good discussion doesn't come from shotgunning intelligent-sounding ideas but rather from some intelligent thought itself. IMHO of course!

by **2Nu** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:46 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by hutter[/i]
 [quote][i]Originally posted by 2Nu[/i]
 Man hutter, I really wish you would sit back and better formulate your responses cause they really come off more as non sensical rhetorical bluster given the rather cogent post made by stella.
[/quote]
Dude, You can lay down the bong now. 4/20 was over days ago.

BTW: It's cheaper to fly NOW than it ever was during Jimmy Carter's reign.

[/quote]Rather than freely dispensing with from the hip invectives might it be better for you to derive some more insightful and engaging manner of articulating your point of view?

Sure ticket prices have hit rock bottom, but at what cost to the industry and the resultant modicum of service?

You certainly appear to advocate a Walmart style of public transportation.

Yeah it's cheap for the consumer but it comes on the backs of an underpaid and disenfranchized work force.

<IMG SRC="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/richp62/Icons%20Avatars/inot.gif">
I'm firmly of the belief that we have become hapless citizens of <a href="http://www.starbase118.net/academy/library/alien/frules.htm" target="blank">"'Ferenginar'"</a>.

by **2Nu** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:49 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
 
A good discussion doesn't come from shotgunning intelligent-sounding ideas but rather from some intelligent thought itself. IMHO of course!
[/quote] Point taken Blir..

Hopefully some reasonable and enlightening discourse will come of this.[:)]

<IMG SRC="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/richp62/Icons%20Avatars/inot.gif">
I'm firmly of the belief that we have become hapless citizens of <a href="http://www.starbase118.net/academy/library/alien/frules.htm" target="blank">"'Ferenginar'"</a>.

by **NuWaveRx** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:33 pm

I've thought about it and decided to piss in this fire....

Keep in mind, I'm no economist, just someone trying to pay attention.

IMHO, Blir is absolutely correct that Capitalism and a Free Market system have worked extraordinarily well for the last 250+ years. I would contend that a free market is EXACTLY what makes America so prosperous and the leader of the free world. Many authors I've read point to Hong Kong is a prime example of what goes right when economic freedom is allowed. In the 1920s it was as poor as many other Far East countries, but British governors took an extremely (even by U.S. standards) Lassiez-Faire attitude toward trade and business. Many people there used that freedom to the hilt, and in 60 years the average income in Hong Kong was greater than the U.K itself. Milton Freedman noted that in Hong Kong the standard of living was higher in 60 years than in many places in the former British Empire (e.g. India) precisely because of a free market system.

Remember, that when Entrepreneurs do well in a free market system that it does in fact benefit MANY other people. Yes Bill Gates is incredibly rich, but how many thousands (perhaps 10s of thousands) of people are employed by him? If Microsoft were to go belly up tomorrow, what would they do? Stella mentioned robber barons. It is an interesting term for people like Rockefeller. When you look at what he did--basically found cheaper and cheaper ways to produce and sell oil (he was not a monopolist, as many think)--it's an example of the Free Market system in full swing. Competition forced prices down and allowed many to purchase goods from oil they may not have gotten before. Additionally many of these barons were fairly philanthropic...The University of Chicago would simply not be the leading learning institution it would be without him.

Finally I would argue that Capitalism is MOST needed by those in poverty. It gives them a shot to better themselves and their lives. It's funny that most countries with extremely regulated economies have a far higher percentage of people in poverty than the U.S. does. I would far rather be "poor" in the U.S. than say, India, or Cuba, or the Congo. There "poor" really is poor. Here a major problem with people of ALL socioeconomic levels is obesity. Don't hear too much about the obesity problem in the countries above.

Does this mean that completely unregulated Capitalism is best for all? Of course not. Unfortunately the greed that is the (let's face it) driving force in this system also leads to abuses, lawbreaking, and cheating. The rule of law must be obeyed. A "safety net" of rules is needed to prevent the (usually) positive force of a free market from tipping over into corporate tyranny. I've said before, for example, that I'm fairly pro-union. Collective bargaining can be necessary to give groups of workers an even playing field with the people at the top.

Some regulation is needed to insure the safety of laborers and their ability to provide for their families.

I'm aware of the disparity of the notions above. I certainly don't claim to have any of the particular answers in this field. But I do feel that the balance struck between regulation designed to protect those workers at the so-called "bottom" of the corporate ladder while maintaining as free market system as possible is the best system invented in modern times to regulate the flow of goods and services. Our system does have problems, but I know of no other way that has been proven to be superior.

Again, all my $0.02 (little irony there, dontcha think?[:D])

by **Promo1** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:55 pm

[quote][i]Originally posted by 2Nu[/i]
 Man hutter, I really wish you would sit back and better formulate your responses cause they really come off more as non sensical rhetorical bluster given the rather cogent post made by stella.

I for one can personally attest to the utter devastation wrought on the Airline industry since 1978 (one of Carter's BIGGEST economic policy blunders)

For the better part of my 25 years in the industry, I saw one iconic aircarrier after another (National, Republic, Frontier, Braniff I-II & II, Pan Am, Eastern, TWA etc..) crumble in the face of the economic turmoil created by the free market economy.

We are now left with what will soon be an airline oligarchy which has displaced countless workers, bankrupted their pension funds as well as severly limiting the travelling public's ability to travel freely and directly between points A & B.

Don't even get me started on 'merger mania' which took off under Reagan's watch and how it has left us with fewer financial, healthcare, energy, manufacturing institutions and choices et-cetera.

<IMG SRC="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/richp62/Icons%20Avatars/inot.gif">
I'm firmly of the belief that we have become hapless citizens of <a href="http://www.starbase118.net/academy/library/alien/frules.htm" target="blank">"'Ferenginar'"</a>.
[/quote]

Quote:
"I for one can personally attest to the utter devastation wrought on the Airline industry since 1978 (one of Carter's BIGGEST economic policy blunders)"

Yes, Peanut Head was (and still is) a blundering idiot. Everything went in the tank including high gas prices.

Quote:
"For the better part of my 25 years in the industry, I saw one iconic aircarrier after another (National, Republic, Frontier, Braniff I-II & II, Pan Am, Eastern, TWA etc..) crumble in the face of the economic turmoil created by the free market economy."

This economic turmoil you refer to seems a bit lopsided in your opinion. Free markets eventually weed out the weak and allow the strong to survive. What happens if there is more product then buyers. What happens if a company expands/operates beyond the support limits? There has to be a balance of both seller and buyer or the weak fail. Airlines are no different.

by **the_great_santini** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:06 pm

[quote]Originally posted by stella
[br]I think I first heard the term deregulation from Ronald Reagan. Every president since has more or less pushed the whole free market thing and this set us up for what we’re getting now. The theory that competition in a free market would lower prices for essential goods and services had already been proven wrong in the years before the great depression. The Industrial Revolution brought great wealth to this country concentrated in the hands of a few, it did not trickle down to the people, it made slaves of the people and the results were and are predictable. None the less we continue to embrace deregulation..

Interstate banking regulations, designed to prevent a second collapse of our banking system, were one of the first to go, followed by the postal service, telecommunications, energy and medical services. Regulation broke up monopolies and controlled prices for essential services and products. Deregulation allowed Enron to scam California, deregulation provides obscene profits to big oil and raises prices at the pump, deregulation put a bunch of high paid bean counters between you and your doctor and if you pay attention you will see all those old monopolies reforming and those old robber barons smiling in their graves.

[/quote]

Protectionism is a thing of the past. Deal with it. Or don't. Either way, globalism will eventually cause you to become the destitute wonder your mother always wanted you to be mainly because you don't know how to play The Game.

Call it Darwin's theory, circa 2006.

by **the_great_santini** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:08 pm

[quote][i]Originally posted by 2Nu[/i]
 Man hutter, I really wish you would sit back and better formulate your responses cause they really come off more as non sensical rhetorical bluster given the rather cogent post made by stella.

I for one can personally attest to the utter devastation wrought on the Airline industry since 1978 (one of Carter's BIGGEST economic policy blunders)

For the better part of my 25 years in the industry, I saw one iconic aircarrier after another (National, Republic, Frontier, Braniff I-II & II, Pan Am, Eastern, TWA etc..) crumble in the face of the economic turmoil created by the free market economy.

We are now left with what will soon be an airline oligarchy which has displaced countless workers, bankrupted their pension funds as well as severly limiting the travelling public's ability to travel freely and directly between points A & B.

Don't even get me started on 'merger mania' which took off under Reagan's watch and how it has left us with fewer financial, healthcare, energy, manufacturing institutions and choices et-cetera.

<IMG SRC="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/richp62/Icons%20Avatars/inot.gif">
I'm firmly of the belief that we have become hapless citizens of <a href="http://www.starbase118.net/academy/library/alien/frules.htm" target="blank">"'Ferenginar'"</a>.
[/quote]

I take it you've never heard of Southwest Airlines, JetBlue and the like. It's really too bad, 2tu, and yet you're still spouting your mouth off about failed airlines.

Take a wild guess about how many major airlines each country in Europe has. Remember, those are the "Regulators", and no, they don't have Nate Dogg singing backup.

by **Frau_Blucher** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:15 pm

Jimbo? Is that you?!!! [:o)]

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~myirwin/Scroll.gif">

by **NuWaveRx** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:32 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by 2Nu[/i]
 [quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
 
A good discussion doesn't come from shotgunning intelligent-sounding ideas but rather from some intelligent thought itself. IMHO of course!
[/quote] Point taken Blir..

Hopefully some reasonable and enlightening discourse will come of this.[:)]

[/quote]

Apparently not. The "reasonable" part anyway....[V]

by **2Nu** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:38 am

[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
 Jimbo? Is that you?!!! [:o)]

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~myirwin/Scroll.gif">
[/quote]
[quote][i]Originally posted by the_great_santini - 04/24/2006 : 22:27:12[/i]
 
No, I'm:
<img src="http://assets.m80im.com/teams/inlivingcolor/homey_2b.gif"></a>
http://assets.m80im.com/teams/inlivingc ... mey_2b.gif

Don't mess foo. Homey don't play dat.[/quote]
First off my apologies for the deleted post (never be afk with a 5 y/o in the room[B)])

[quote][i]Originally posted by the_great_santini[/i]
I take it you've never heard of Southwest Airlines, JetBlue and the like. It's really too bad, 2tu, and yet you're still spouting your mouth off about failed airlines.

[/quote]
Well, Well, Well now who do we have here?

Someone new I suppose? or rather someone all too familiar who was in all likelihood, egged on by his fellow sycophants to jump back in (under an ASSumed alias, how clever..) and rip into those of us who dare to 'spout' something other than the everpresent neocon-artist, Heritage Foundation dogma.

If you want to debate me about the airlines, keep in mind that I was referring to the ORIGINAL ERA aircarriers (with the exception of Braniff, Frontier, and Republic) who operated both domestic and international air routes which entailed establishing and maintaining an EXTENSIVE and COSTLY logistical-operational support infrastructure that utilized mixed aircraft fleets on various continents.

Southwest and Jetblue are both Non Union DOMESTIC aircarriers that got their start in two totally different eras as REGIONAL airlines with a single type aircraft fleet (SWest: 1971- 737's, JBlue: 2000- A320's respectively).

Southwest pioneered the 'no frills' airline business model that differed completely from the existing operating paradigm.

They leased rather than purchased their gate space and stuck to a specific regional travel market to make profitable short haul flights and not going 'head to head' with the big aircarriers of the day in their respective domestic long haul markets.

Jetblue was established (with $128 million worth of Wall Street investment backing) in early 2000 after the post deregulatory airline shakeout with a business model patterned after Southwest (except with added inflight amenities),a brand new aircraft fleet and an internet based reservation and ticketing system.

Do to their ultra low cost business practices, both airlines were able to sustain some profitability and growth in the wake of the devastated post 9-11 airline economy by further drawing passenger revenue and domestic marketshare away from other struggling aircarriers.

However, rising fuel costs, ill timed market expansion forays and decision (Jetblue) to aquire a new aircraft type (Embraer 120) have added to their current economic woes.

[quote][i]Originally posted by the_great_santini[/i]
Take a wild guess about how many major airlines each country in Europe has. Remember, those are the "Regulators", and no, they don't have Nate Dogg singing backup. [/quote]

Here we go yet again with the syllogistic Red Herring..

How does that serve as a counterpoint to what was mentioned earlier?
As far as 'regulators' are concerned, IATA and ICAO are the international regulatory entities that govern international air commerce policy and operational procedures, not the aircarriers themselves.

Stick to arguing your right wing political talking points.

<IMG SRC="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/richp62/Icons%20Avatars/inot.gif">
I'm firmly of the belief that we have become hapless citizens of <a href="http://www.starbase118.net/academy/library/alien/frules.htm" target="blank">"'Ferenginar'"</a>.

New Wave Outpost Forum

Deregulation

Deregulation

Who is online