CPseudonym
Moderator Emeritus
The fractal mistake of this thread is believing the myth a free market exists at all. We live in a structured and managed economy.
The fractal mistake of this thread is believing the myth a free market exists at all. We live in a structured and managed economy.
Most interesting, to me, was that it is the trade association complaining that their unlicensed competition is subjecting the public to danger. That may be, but I suspect that, like most trade associations, their real concern is having to compete. Reminds me of how taxi-cab companies / associations have complained (with surprisingly little success) about the dangers to the public of their unlicensed competition from Uber. From my perspective, competition is a good thing for the consumer and the consumer ought to be able to make his/her own decision about these matters.
..... but you aren't arguing that some regulation improves safety are you?
. . .Here are some areas where the free market . . . failed from a societal point of view.
- The oil company monopolies in the early part of the last century.
- Working conditions and worker abuses during the industrial revolution.
- Health care insurance industry.
- Civil rights (ie red-lining etc...)
- Environmental impacts from industry (I grew up playing in arsenic and heavy metal contaminated soil from the free market smelting industry)
- Loss of fishing stocks
- banking and financial collapses in the last century and the beginning of this century.
While it may be true that if an airline had a lot of accidents that eventually the market would correct by folks not flying on those airlines. However, how many lives would be an acceptable loss before the market made the correction?
Free markets are a great concept that I basically agree with, however one should never be blinded to the very real, and very bad effects of free market excesses.
No, of course not. The last bit of my post made that very point.
If we had capitalism and no regulation, an efficient way to limit your competition would be to go shoot your competitors. No one is advocating such a free-for-all.
But it can be taken to absurd levels in the other direction, too. We have seen some of that.
Some people don't like free markets because it produces winners and losers. I liked capitalism since before enjoying any level of success. Your comment about oil monopolies producing wealth suggests that you may resent the winners?
Agree. Some gain from regulation, even if imperfect, is worth having.I agree that no amount of regulation can make any industry perfectly safe, but you aren't arguing that some regulation improves safety are you?
One Asian airline, maybe 2, got to that stage. I remember news film of a man standing on the nose section of a crashed 747, using spray cans to cover up the airline name. Both airlines got serious about safety.While it may be true that if an airline had a lot of accidents that eventually the market would correct by folks not flying on those airlines. However, how many lives would be an acceptable loss before the market made the correction?
Free markets are a great concept that I basically agree with, however one should never be blinded to the very real, and very bad effects of free market excesses.
I don't resent winners.
I don't resent winners.
I realized commenting about you, personally, was impolite so I edited that out of my post, apparently while you were preparing your response. In any event, I recognize that how you feel about others is none of my business.
We have an unlicensed charterer (harbor cruises) in our yacht club marina. The club knows about it (even though it illegal to use a club slip for commercial purposes), and the CG knows about it, (got stopped once, got off with a warnin'.) This will be his third year as an illegal charterer and no one cares.
We have an unlicensed charterer (harbor cruises) in our yacht club marina. The club knows about it (even though it illegal to use a club slip for commercial purposes), and the CG knows about it, (got stopped once, got off with a warnin'.) This will be his third year as an illegal charterer and no one cares.
The question has recurred of the actual violations being committed as the article seems to run off in all directions as bad as a TF thread.
Two primary violations of USCG rules:
1-Captain not licensed and/or boat not approved for charter. There's still an inspection and sign off, even of non-inspected vessels.
2-Captain and boat ok for up to 6, carrying more.
Both of these are seen rather frequently.
Now, there are variations as to how they occur. The most common is a fake bareboat charter. It's made to look on paper like the boat is being chartered without crew, which is legal, but then the owner captains it, making it illegal. This is also springing up a lot on the boat rental sites. Often someone wants to rent it, but then they bring up the question of would the owner go with them since they don't have a lot of experience.They crossed from legal to not.
Why is each of these important? First, the "Captain" has already shown a lack of concern regarding laws. What about pfd's, fire extinguishers? What about first aid training? What about handling in rough conditions? Then you go with the second group and exceeding 6, is that even a reasonable number for the boat in a chartering situation? 12 people might fit on a Sundancer 350, but one is not a safe charter with that many. The Captain can't keep up with them all and fulfill his responsibility.
Then when something goes wrong, there is no insurance. Even if they had it, insurance bails out very quickly on those chartering illegally.
We're also thinking larger boats, but this happens on all sorts of boats. I saw it years ago on the lake on a small pontoon boat. Someone was looking to rent a pontoon boat with a captain, but none was available. A man at the marina said he'd take them out. They seemed like a nice group and he had nothing better to do plus making a little money. Mid day they anchored for a swim. A girl got injured jumping into the water, hit her head and nearly drowned. Insurance denied the claim. The family's medical insurance paid and came after the boat owner. The claim for actual damages was over $120k. Nice guy, did one stupid careless thing, and he and his wife ended up having to file bankruptcy to save their house. Divorce also followed closely. Oh, the family that chartered that boat that day had even said that they wouldn't tell anyone they paid, just pretend they were friends. That lasted about five minutes once questioning started.
When someone, anyone, operates outside the law, then all the protections one gets within the law quickly disappear.
Do we want unlicensed surgeons or pilots?
We already have Air France , with "licensed pilots" that can not recognize a simple stall.
In my opinion, we want well qualified surgeons and pilots. Because licensing is required, we tend to take the license as a sign of qualification but actually know little more about the surgeon's / pilot's actual qualifications. Imagine a world without governmental licensing. What would a consumer do? Well, free market to the rescue. For example, airlines would discern the value of having great pilots and would tout their own standards -- perhaps something like "All of our pilots are former military aviators, and have XXX hours, etc." That would actually spur competition for pilot quality -- competition that doesn't exist today.
When you board an aircraft...., do you ask to see their license and the craft's airworthiness certificate?
In my opinion, we want well qualified surgeons and pilots. Because licensing is required, we tend to take the license as a sign of qualification but actually know little more about the surgeon's / pilot's actual qualifications. Imagine a world without governmental licensing. What would a consumer do? Well, free market to the rescue. For example, airlines would discern the value of having great pilots and would tout their own standards -- perhaps something like "All of our pilots are former military aviators, and have XXX hours, etc." That would actually spur competition for pilot quality -- competition that doesn't exist today.
Some of y'all never heard of yelp.com
Some of us use that website and others before we make any medical, legal or other professional services appointment. It's called one part of making an informed choice and happens to be a free market solution to finding out what state licensing boards are all to good at hiding from the general public.
Without government regulation, there would be no requirement that those claims would be true.
I also know that consumers are terrible at judging the competence of their physicians.
So, what is the Doc supposed to do with that review? Federal laws prohibit . . .Once again, regulation is the root of the problem.