no - they are not free market transactions - the market was not free - the airlines knew they did not have to exceed $1,350 - that is textbook opposite of how market prices work. You can't use the term free market for how this works
How Delta masters the game of overbooking flights (free markets not force)
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
no - they are not free market transactions - the market was not free - the airlines knew they did not have to exceed $1,350 - that is textbook opposite of how market prices work. You can't use the term free market for how this works
It's not a silly point at all. Free markets work because of their ability to find prices that satisfy both buyer and seller.
Also, I think you neglect the pervasiveness of markets. Just about every solution would have involved markets of some sort. All those suggested by USF certainly did. Can you give us an example of a solution that does not involve markets?
Last edited:
Oh, I assure you I can. It's the obvious description of the transaction. The buyer and seller both voluntarily agree to a price. That is a free market transaction. I did it again.
Again, the regulation only constrains the ability of the market to find a price freely. That's what happened here. Then you have an unfree market transaction, or a state controlled one where when they run out of seating someone takes a beating.
as the buyer, I am aware of the protections the seller is afforded by government decree.
claiming I freely agreed to a price ignores this relationship - which is opposite of free market principles.
you can keep saying 1+1 = 3 , but that doesn't make it fact.
First you claim that a passenger's lack of knowledge screws him now knowing hurts. LOL
I have ignored nothing. In the Delta example they still agree to a price freely. No one is forced to accept a price below $1350. That's a cap. It just limits the markets ability to find a price to which both can agree.
The cap will only ever be relevant when the airline fails to find anyone that will accept that amount or less. That's when it is no longer a free market transaction. That's when people get beat or ripped off at least.
You seem to be suggesting that free market transactions only occur in completely unregulated markets. That's just some extremists or absolutist nonsense. Your definition is unsound.
Free markets, as commonly used, are not free of a government presence. They are free of force. Theft is a transaction that happens without government all the time and in the case of United with it, but it's not a free market transaction.
The transaction in the Delta article were all freely agreed to and are free market examples. I am sorry if the phrase gives you a rash, makes your knee jerk or has any other effect but any orthodox economist will likely describe those transactions in the same way.
you seem passionate abut arguing in favor of free markets that are actually heavily regulated.
I don't share your passion. tilt at windmills all you want - I know what freemarkets look like and Delta isn't operating in one.
so long as Delta uses the protections the state provides them - they are also taking the statist route.
they know they can overbook, and they are protected by the state at a set amount of damages - that is statist too!
No, you are just using some extremist/absolutist jargon which never works. The world is not made of only the black and white.
Free markets are regulated or controlled in some way. The prohibition on force is a control. The requirement that you deliver services for which you accept payment is a control. Further, even under the least regulated markets some transactions are not free market transactions.
Delta has found a way to facilitate a free market transaction or one where the buyer and seller freely agree to a price. United instead got the government to bail them out and resorted to violence to rob their customer.
I appreciate that you realize the market would be improved by removing restrictions or making it freer. I fully agree.
Althea
Althea told me...
I believe I already posted scenarios where they do indeed pay more, if it's profitable to them.
Althea
Althea told me...
Anti Trust laws exist in free markets.
Althea
Althea told me...
I'd have to read that story, and don't forget....you're talking about bumped. I'm sure the passenger was willing to make a deal. This issue had nothing to do with being bumped. From what I've been reading, 'bumping' occurs before boarding.
They always take price into consideration. They wouldn't bump a first class passenger who paid $2000, for one who paid $1750 unless there were other circumstances.
They do. Your source does not even mention the phrase "free market." What is the relevance? You are conflating the term with "laissez faire" or some other view that signifies degree or an extreme about the entire system. That's not what it means.
Free market is not about degree it is about the specific part of our economy that handles exchange and distribution or the market. When two or more market participants enter into an agreement freely, then you have a free market exchange.
I have not been attempting to label the bigger system. I am referring the the specific transactions. Delta used free markets to make their transactions peacefully, efficiently and in way that satisfies all and United had the government bail them out.
Your ignorant trolling does not even address the point.
nope - ignorant trolling - lol. I'm being really nice here - but you are out of your league
you can side with the position that a free market creates problems and needs to be regulated - but you don't get your cake and eat it.
in free markets, monopolies can form. Anti-trust laws are clearly moving away from free markets.
your argument amounts to "water is not wet" you can't win this.