"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." - Voltaire
<a href="http://electricdreams71.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">My Blog: <FONT COLOR="CCFF33">E</FONT><FONT COLOR="0000CC">l</FONT><FONT COLOR="CC00CC">e</FONT><FONT COLOR="003300">c</FONT><FONT COLOR="FFCC33">t</FONT><FONT COLOR="9999CC">r</FONT><FONT COLOR="003399">i</FONT><FONT COLOR="FF3333">c</FONT><FONT COLOR="CC00CC">D</FONT><FONT COLOR="003300">r</FONT><FONT COLOR="FFCC33">e</FONT><FONT COLOR="9999CC">a</FONT><FONT COLOR="003399">m</FONT><FONT COLOR="FF3333">s</FONT></a>
| Site Announcements |
|---|
|
View the results of the New Wave Outpost 20th Anniversary Top Songs Poll here: http://www.nwoutpost.com/poll/results Coming Soon: Top Albums Poll. Stay tuned! Welcome to the new forum! If you are a previously registered user, you must do the following: 1) Click on 'I forgot my password' at the login prompt 2) Enter your username and email you registered with and submit 3) You will receive an email with an activation link. Please click it and then log in using the random password provided 4) Go to your User Control Panel and click on the Profile tab 5) Click on 'Edit Account Settings' and enter your new password twice followed by the random password provided earlier. Click Submit. 6) That's it...you're back in! You may have to log in again with your new password. If you forgot your email address, please email me (MikeP) at: mikepaulsen12@gmail.com Note: you must now use bb code buttons in the Post form for embedded images, YouTube videos, etc. For example, to post embedded YouTube videos: paste in the link (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?XYZ1234567), highlight it and then click the YouTube button. |
Deregulation
23 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by the_great_santini » Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:26 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by 2Nu[/i]
<br>[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.
[/quote]
I don't know who you think I am, but I assure you this is the first time I've set foot in this laugh factory. As for your brilliant analysis of my "neocon" roots, well, I'll just smirk at your ignorant stupidity.
Now, let's go over our exchange 2tu:
You said that the "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."
My response:
Take a look at indie carriers.
Your response to that:
I didn't clarify my point earlier, sorry, I'm not good at this argument thing.
Now, as for your new stuff... Ok, so now you want to change your argument that people won't be able to move freely from Point A International to Point B International, correct? Tell me HOW is that possible when I can fly Air Canada, Aero Mexico, Aeroflot or Lufthansa in addition to any of the American majors on trips out of the US?
Who's to blame for the airline industry's stupidity? Let me guess, GWB? Reagan? You? Don't kid yourself man. At fault are the moronic judgements of the upper echelons of the majors in addition to the bane of modern society: unions. If it weren't for those parasitic leeches the majors might still offer you more than peanuts on a trans-american flight.
Are you a Socialist?
ps. You deleted my post because you were afk? What the fuck is afk? Shouldn't someone notify child protection services and report that you have a five year old in your company...
<br>[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.
[/quote]
I don't know who you think I am, but I assure you this is the first time I've set foot in this laugh factory. As for your brilliant analysis of my "neocon" roots, well, I'll just smirk at your ignorant stupidity.
Now, let's go over our exchange 2tu:
You said that the "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."
My response:
Take a look at indie carriers.
Your response to that:
I didn't clarify my point earlier, sorry, I'm not good at this argument thing.
Now, as for your new stuff... Ok, so now you want to change your argument that people won't be able to move freely from Point A International to Point B International, correct? Tell me HOW is that possible when I can fly Air Canada, Aero Mexico, Aeroflot or Lufthansa in addition to any of the American majors on trips out of the US?
Who's to blame for the airline industry's stupidity? Let me guess, GWB? Reagan? You? Don't kid yourself man. At fault are the moronic judgements of the upper echelons of the majors in addition to the bane of modern society: unions. If it weren't for those parasitic leeches the majors might still offer you more than peanuts on a trans-american flight.
Are you a Socialist?
ps. You deleted my post because you were afk? What the fuck is afk? Shouldn't someone notify child protection services and report that you have a five year old in your company...
- the_great_santini
- Switchin' to Glide
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:44 pm
- Location:
by stella » Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:28 am
"Deregulation as most people understand it today is a phenomenon"
NO it's not. It was a planned process begun by Ronald Regan as governor of CA and continued during his presidency.
"fairly recent times, likely around only since the early '70s."
Nothing likely about it, it was the early 70s.
"What relevance the Industrial Revolution of over a hundred years ago has to this topic isn't clear." WELL things were unregulated than and the abuses of no regulation rampant.
"I would love some elucidation." THERE you go.
"Going back to Regulation, where the regulatory agencies were in bed with the regulated?" THAT'S a problem, the regulated seems to always corrupt the regulator but it's no argument for a freeforall, it's an argument for better law enforcement maybe. Or better laws.
"That's not so different than now, where Congress is in bed with the Unregulated." Law enforcement again.
"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."
What I'm for is regulating essential goods and services to ensure that they are safe and available. The things people need to live like water, air, energy, food and shelter need to be regulated and protected because when left unregulated they are exploited. If we could have a fair society such as you describe Blir, I would take it, happily.
"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." DID I say It was? I'm for free trade but I like fair trade better. Deregulation has cost the American people their life savings. The S&L scandals, the company take overs and break ups, the disappeared pension funds, these are things that left millions of Americans needy, dependent on social security and public services that you have to pay for.
WHO let the sharks out?
NO it's not. It was a planned process begun by Ronald Regan as governor of CA and continued during his presidency.
"fairly recent times, likely around only since the early '70s."
Nothing likely about it, it was the early 70s.
"What relevance the Industrial Revolution of over a hundred years ago has to this topic isn't clear." WELL things were unregulated than and the abuses of no regulation rampant.
"I would love some elucidation." THERE you go.
"Going back to Regulation, where the regulatory agencies were in bed with the regulated?" THAT'S a problem, the regulated seems to always corrupt the regulator but it's no argument for a freeforall, it's an argument for better law enforcement maybe. Or better laws.
"That's not so different than now, where Congress is in bed with the Unregulated." Law enforcement again.
"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."
What I'm for is regulating essential goods and services to ensure that they are safe and available. The things people need to live like water, air, energy, food and shelter need to be regulated and protected because when left unregulated they are exploited. If we could have a fair society such as you describe Blir, I would take it, happily.
"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." DID I say It was? I'm for free trade but I like fair trade better. Deregulation has cost the American people their life savings. The S&L scandals, the company take overs and break ups, the disappeared pension funds, these are things that left millions of Americans needy, dependent on social security and public services that you have to pay for.
WHO let the sharks out?
- stella
- Personal Jesus
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 4:13 am
- Location: USA
by KYYX4ever » Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:54 am
re: Reagan
I call Reagan's whole "trickle-down" theory the "trickle-ON" theory of economics, b/c IMO, that's what it did: it trickled ON the little people.
Thanks, guys, I'll be here all week.[:p]
I call Reagan's whole "trickle-down" theory the "trickle-ON" theory of economics, b/c IMO, that's what it did: it trickled ON the little people.
Thanks, guys, I'll be here all week.[:p]
- KYYX4ever
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 4191
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:51 pm
- Location:
by Frau_Blucher » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:42 am
Jeez how'd I miss these replies!
Elucidation doesn't mean more disjointed spew. Stella, you're still talking about mismatched ideas which [i]seem[/i] to have some relevance to eachother - but in fact don't - to support your rambling points. The early days of the Industrial Revolution wasn't the Deregulation that we're talking about today - it was near lawlessness in a world whose legislation didn't have a clue about how to keep up with new technologies. There were simply no relevant laws about polution, fair business practices, child labor, etc. That's largely not the case today.
And I beg to contest whether you're for free trade at all - no one who says "the theory that competition in a free market would lower prices for essential goods and services had already been proven wrong" is possibly for "free trade" in its overall meaning. Argue about fair trade and what it means if you want but don't mix concepts and buzzwords that only have revelance to eachother in your mind or as useless soundbites. If you're not for Deregulation, and if you concede that the old Regulation was also corrupt, what are you for and how are you for it? You think more Regulation in its old econo-political sense will actual put [i]less[/i] layers of inefficient bureaucracies between you and your goods?!
The S&L scandals took place, it [i]didn't[/i] in fact collapse our banking system despite the pain, and now there is more focused legislation surrounding it. The Enron stuff happened, and now there are hugely more stringent accounting laws in place. There'll certainly be more shit in an imperfect world and hopefully we'll react to that too. How would you have us react or pre-emptively stave shit off? There's NOTHING here or anywhere in your polemics that are remotely elucidating.
And oh god KYYX...trickle-down! AAAAAAHHH!!! I still don't think we know if that Reagan cluster-fuck did a damned thing. It was more likely our stagflation-fighting monetary policies that turned things around. I have a real problem trying to apply big macroeconomic principals like the Laffer Curve to one segment of the economy (the rich!) and thinking it'll somehow trickle down. It hasn't - the proof is in the percentage of the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and lobby-driven pork getting fatter. But that's got as little to do with Deregulation as Reagan has to being the savior of the modern economy...different headache! [V]
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~myirwin/Scroll.gif">
Elucidation doesn't mean more disjointed spew. Stella, you're still talking about mismatched ideas which [i]seem[/i] to have some relevance to eachother - but in fact don't - to support your rambling points. The early days of the Industrial Revolution wasn't the Deregulation that we're talking about today - it was near lawlessness in a world whose legislation didn't have a clue about how to keep up with new technologies. There were simply no relevant laws about polution, fair business practices, child labor, etc. That's largely not the case today.
And I beg to contest whether you're for free trade at all - no one who says "the theory that competition in a free market would lower prices for essential goods and services had already been proven wrong" is possibly for "free trade" in its overall meaning. Argue about fair trade and what it means if you want but don't mix concepts and buzzwords that only have revelance to eachother in your mind or as useless soundbites. If you're not for Deregulation, and if you concede that the old Regulation was also corrupt, what are you for and how are you for it? You think more Regulation in its old econo-political sense will actual put [i]less[/i] layers of inefficient bureaucracies between you and your goods?!
The S&L scandals took place, it [i]didn't[/i] in fact collapse our banking system despite the pain, and now there is more focused legislation surrounding it. The Enron stuff happened, and now there are hugely more stringent accounting laws in place. There'll certainly be more shit in an imperfect world and hopefully we'll react to that too. How would you have us react or pre-emptively stave shit off? There's NOTHING here or anywhere in your polemics that are remotely elucidating.
And oh god KYYX...trickle-down! AAAAAAHHH!!! I still don't think we know if that Reagan cluster-fuck did a damned thing. It was more likely our stagflation-fighting monetary policies that turned things around. I have a real problem trying to apply big macroeconomic principals like the Laffer Curve to one segment of the economy (the rich!) and thinking it'll somehow trickle down. It hasn't - the proof is in the percentage of the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and lobby-driven pork getting fatter. But that's got as little to do with Deregulation as Reagan has to being the savior of the modern economy...different headache! [V]
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~myirwin/Scroll.gif">
- Frau_Blucher
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 10195
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:37 pm
- Location:
by KYYX4ever » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:51 am
You are quite correct, Blir. Different headache. I did not mean to imply that Reagan's "trickle-on" theory was linked to deregulation. Just seeing Reagan's name brought up earlier in the thread made me post about him.
- KYYX4ever
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 4191
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:51 pm
- Location:
by Frau_Blucher » Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:00 am
Oops, didn't mean to imply that either KYYX...just starting me on my own seperate rant, heh.
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~myirwin/Scroll.gif">
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~myirwin/Scroll.gif">
- Frau_Blucher
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 10195
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:37 pm
- Location:
23 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to —Not Necessarily New Wave—
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests