A tweet from Foer on other prospective beneficiaries.

Two more tweets from the 'Keeping Our Eyes on the Ball' desk.

I kinda disagree with most of Wu's thoughts about airlines.

His argument for federal specification of change fees seems to be that it would be nice for consumers, as would free sports cars upon landing. But consumers can make choices with regards to seat spacing and (I presume) change fees: I'm resistant to flying skinnyman coach on Delta. How exactly do the things he dislikes about modern air service constitute a failure of the free market? Is he saying that it's too free to work correctly?

I mean, has he considered paying more for a transaction, instead of squeezing each counterpart (airline) for every damn dime and being as ruthless in his bargaining as he possibly can? (…With the knowledge that given the safety overtones governing the entire industry, airlines and their employees have to take a lot of abuse from customers without returning fire?)

Here's the thing: Airlines aren't an especially profitable business to be in. If flyers can, by bitching like dalmatians at an airport counter, save five dollars for a miraculously safe, brisk and reliable trip across the country, they'll do it.

McArdle did an article about this a year or two ago: Continuing improvements to airline efficiency (such as fuel consumption & clever routing) tend to get smaller and smaller as the business gets older, because the big improvements have already been made. The violent seating debacle at O'Hare a couple of years ago was said to be caused by over-reliance on teams of inexpensive subcontractors. To some extent, it's what we get for pushing so hard.

Dictating how a business does business warps the marketplace and competition.

Ironically, airlines were one of the industries that taught us that lesson.

Are we to go back to the days of regulated airlines - when passenger routes were assigned by the government? Are we to go back to the days when government dictated the price of a ticket and allowed a "reasonable" profit for airlines? Back to the days when air travel was an expensive luxury?

The problem with bailouts is that the government decides that an industry is vital and, by association, the participants in that industry become vital too. It might be, but they're not.

If Delta goes broke because of this outbreak, some other airline will rise to take its place - perhaps with a better business model and less union baggage. Who knows, the stage might be set by multiple airline bankruptcies for a rail system revival. People will travel; and someone will carry them.

If Royal Caribbean goes bankrupt and no cruise line rises to take its place, it might be a sign that cruises were not a vital part of life in this century.

If casinos go broke because of this outbreak, people will still gamble. They'll do it online or by other means. We'll always have "The Oldest Established Permanent Floating Crap Game in New York."

Life happens and your business needs to be prepared for it. I'm sure the buggy whip manufacturers at the turn of the last century worried they'd be put out of business by the advent of the automobile. And they were. Yet, life went on.

"... less union baggage." ~Conan

Well, you named the problem right there. Can't have an important voting block lose their jobs. They might start voting for the other party.

Ben,

Out of curiosity, exactly what union jobs were saved by the bank bailout?

There is only one consistent factor here and it is that when companies are in danger of financial losses they demand the government step in to use tax payer money to socialize the negative financial impact.

Then when things are going well they demand government step away to privatize the positive financial gains.

The consistency here isn't free market economics... we have a corrosive system of corporate influence that demands to privatize profits and socialize losses.

At least Conan is consistent here in his disdain for government involvement in the private sector.

You on the other hand are blaming unions for what is clearly a tendency of corporate lobbying influences.

Conan is correct when he says the following:

"Life happens and your business needs to be prepared for it."

If we are going to be a free market then let the market prevail... no need for government to get involved in private industry.

On the other hand if private industry is going to demand government saviors then they need to submit to government regulatory intervention without complaint.

If we are responsible for bail outs then oversight is fully justified to reduce out collective risk.

On the other hand if private industry is going to demand government saviors then they need to submit to government regulatory intervention without complaint.

You have that backwards. Because of government regulatory interventions, it is not unfair to expect government propping up.

I would prefer that Congress consult Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to see what powers they hold, but sadly they don't want to be limited in that manner.

I will point out the thousands of tweets of people dumbfounded that Trump hasn't issued an executive order forcing restaurants, bars, coffee shops, etc, to close immediately.

How long has it been since basic civics was taught in the USofA? as Crid points out in today's linkie section, cleaning this over reach of power is going to take time cleaning up.

I R A Darth Aggie Says:

"You have that backwards. Because of government regulatory interventions, it is not unfair to expect government propping up."

I don't actually have it backwards.

Personally I would be okay with both.

What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of corporations who whine and moan about government regulation and then cry for handouts when things go awry.

Government wasn't the one who behave hypocritically in this case, they are willing to offer bailouts and desire to regulate.

Business is the one in this situation that complains about regulation and then begs for a financial safety net.

Not too good at reading are you Arty.

I was just pointing out given Tim Wu's expressed viewpoints keeping union companies going is very much in his interest. Quite frankly bailouts aren't enough for the fellow. Hence all the new regulations he is requesting. Can't have all those non-union people competing.

Now feel free to point out where I've called for bailouts.

Ben,

I can read just fine... your focus on unions in a corporate bailout discussion is stupid and silly.

That isn't the main driving force here as demonstrated by historical precedent.

If you think unions are the main driving force behind corporate bailouts then you are delusional.

If you believe that this conversation wasn't about the bailouts and you just decided to insert an anti-union rant without qualifying it as an entirely unrelated topic you just wanted to bring up then you are a dishonest interlocutor.

As usual Arty you are a waste of text. Congrats on that consistency.

The bank bailouts in 2008 did not preserve union jobs, but the bailout of GM certainly did (at least for several years) - at the cost of also preserving a management team that was incapable of specifying car designs that most people would want to buy. Instead of an immediate bankruptcy with the factories and design centers auctioned off to other companies that might have made better use of them, we got a long, drawn-out decline.

What I have a problem with is the hypocrisy of corporations who whine and moan about government regulation and then cry for handouts when things go awry.

That's not hypocrisy, that's smart business. No one gives you something unless you ask for it. If our representatives are too dumb - or willing - to bend over backwards, that's on us for electing such people.

It's no different than Nancy Pelosi attaching abortion money to the corona virus funding package, then blaming Republicans for blocking the passage of the bill. The sheer gall of wanting a clean funding bill!

It is rarely as cut and dry as Arty presents things.

The auto bailout didn't originally include Ford. The second round did. In the bank bailouts some of the banks didn't want to be bailed out. They didn't need the money and understood strings were attached. Bank of America is a good example of that. They were forcibly merged with Merrill Lynch and regulators made it clear they either accepted the strings, money, and merger or the regulators would put them out of business.

For that matter not only companies have been bailed out. Several states and US territories have been bailed out. A number of people are currently worried how a bailout of Illinois will turn out.

So no it isn't always companies begging for money. And no it isn't always about saving union jobs. But a waste of text is what you get when you take one short line and write multiple paragraphs imagining what those word could mean.

And yes I am a cranky old man today. Tomorrow I will try to be better.

As to the bank bail out -- my then employer did not need the bailout and did not want it (because of the strings attached to it) but were forced to take it. Supposedly this was to hide the poor state of some banks which really did require the bail out.
--like Ben said.

If I am not mistaken, the government eventually did end up making money off of the bail out.

"If I am not mistaken, the government eventually did end up making money off of the bail out."

yes I believe the banks paid it back.

And it was counted as deficit during Bush admin and income in Obama years.

The loan guarantees for LTCM were never invoked, either. Something about federal intervention somehow gives these guys religion.