Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Glock Airlines

I have a new piece on EconLib, the Liberty Fund forum hosted by my main man, Russ Roberts.

An excerpt, on Glock Airlines:

[The basic problem is this:] can I decide, and risk just my money, for great reward if I'm right? Or will we decide, and risk our whole future budget, on things we aren't very good at deciding?

The examples come thick and fast: should we have a uniform ethanol standard in all gasoline, or should we let gas stations (or individuals) concoct their own fuel mix formulas? Should the government subsidize hydrogen fuel cell cars, or let people at the extremes, perhaps two Mikes in some garage, work on the problem? Why not allow terminally ill, or even mildly ill, people to use whatever drugs they want, regardless of whether Median Joe (working through his stone-faced employee, the FDA) thinks that drug has five chances in a million of giving you a stroke?

Markets, and market processes, are themselves a pretty important innovation, one not always approved or understood by Median Joe. Why not let the market work at an even more radical level, one that many people might think goes too far? Imagine that airlines could compete based on the level of security they provide. Let passengers choose their own security, along with a mix of price and inconvenience that some entrepreneur thinks would increase profits.

And we could go further: imagine a security line at the airport where the guard looks at your boarding pass and asks, "Are you carrying any weapons?" When you say no, he gives you one, a 9mm Glock. "All passengers are required to carry these, sir. Airline policy." Not all airlines, mind you; only "Glock Air" (motto: "We just flew in from Cleveland, and boy are our arms locked and loaded"). You might choose to fly Glock. They have never had a terrorist incident, and if you push the flight attendant call button the guy comes running.

Or, you might not fly Glock. You don't have to. You might choose some other airline with a unique combination of services, safety, and schedule. In the current regulatory environment, too many decisions are one-size-fits-all, because we don't recognize the possibility that it could be different.

We have become too accepting of the views of the middle, in too many aspects of our lives. Worse, we have fallen victim to a soft but encroaching political paternalism. In many cases, it isn't even the median citizen who enforces his views on everyone. Instead, special interests and "public" lobbyists dominate the making of rules and decisions that force all of us to act as if we all had the same views on risk, taste, and service.

The thing to keep in mind is that market processes, working through diverse private choice and individual responsibility, are a social choice process at least as powerful as voting. And markets are often more accurate in delivering not just satisfaction, but safety. We simply don't recognize the power of the market's commands on our behalf. As Ludwig von Mises famously said, in Liberty and Property, "The market process is a daily repeated plebiscite, and it ejects inevitably from the ranks of profitable people those who do not employ their property according to the orders given by the public."

ATSRTWT

4 comments:

Dirty Davey said...

I think you have a typo; the Apple that sold was the II (and its later iterations the II+ and IIe); the III was released after the phenomenal success of the II series but was itself a dog of a computer.

Dirty Davey said...

OK, I'm wrong--the III was in fact 1980, and the II was 1977. But describing the I and the III and skipping the II is a misleading portrait of what happened.

Dirty Davey said...

Munger sez:


But we still face the same basic problem: can I decide, and risk just my money, for great reward if I'm right? Or will we decide, and risk our whole future budget, on things we aren't very good at deciding?


Many of these examples, though, presume that the individual (a) is risking "only" money and (b) actually can make a fair assessment of the risks.


The examples come thick and fast: should we have a uniform ethanol standard in all gasoline, or should we let gas stations (or individuals) concoct their own fuel mix formulas?


Ignoring individual petrochemists, for the moment, and focusing on sale through stations: what responsibility does a station have for being straightforward about what a mix is and where it works and doesn't work? What responsibility does a car manufacturer have for providing the owner with information on the limits and requirements of the engine? Will there be any sort of signage requirements, or will drivers away from their home stations have to pull into a station and read the fine print to figure out whether the formula is compatible with their car?

Pollution is a classic example of an externality; given that some ethanol requirements are to reduce petroleum emissions, should a market with less regulated fuel mixes have a more complex tax structure to capture these costs?


Why not allow terminally ill, or even mildly ill, people to use whatever drugs they want, regardless of whether Median Joe (working through his stone-faced employee, the FDA) thinks that drug has five chances in a million of giving you a stroke?


Of course, we can't write off Joe at the FDA too quickly. Even if you argue that the individual consumer has a right to choose to take (or not to take) the five-in-a-million risk rather than delegating the choice to Joe, that argument presumes that the probability is known to the decision-maker. History, and observation of the market, indicate that the average pharma company is motivated to offer the sick a one-sided sales pitch rather than a sober assessment of safety and efficacy.


Markets, and market processes, are themselves a pretty important innovation,


But the innovation is actually a "regulated market" rather than a simple market of transactions... So the question is one of the optimal level of regulation. While one can argue that the FDA approval process restricts the entry of new drugs to the market, one could similarly argue that the patent system prevents new drugs from becoming widely and cheaply available.

In fact, the entire concept of "intellectual property" is one of government intervention in the market process... And yet IP regulation is generally seen as an essential component of a market which encourages innovation.

It seems to me that regulation of commerce here can be seen as an alternative to...

(1) Very strict regulation of commercial speech and advertising to enable informed consumer decision-making

and/or

(2) A chaotic world in which liability lawsuits are the primary response to bad behavior in the market


Imagine that airlines could compete based on the level of security they provide. Let passengers choose their own security, along with a mix of price and inconvenience that some entrepreneur thinks would increase profits.



The obvious market response--that would undoubtedly be profitable and make many passengers feel far more secure--would be the "no brown people" airline. And yet I can't help but think that particular innovation violates the social contract. (I would also argue that a recipient of significant governmental support like an airline has a much greater obligation in such matters than does a private citizen.)

DD.

Anonymous said...

"And yet I can't help but think that particular innovation violates the social contract."

Who cares if an airline fails to comply with the terms of a contract that it never agreed to and the existence of which is unfalsifiable?