(12-29-2009 11:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.

What makes you think that corruption and lack of competition would not be the logical outcome. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?

(12-29-2009 11:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.

What makes you think that corruption and lack of competition would not be the logical outcome. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?

It's a concern. It's a concern w/ the current security staff.

All I can say is, it makes me feel better when an airline can cancel a contract w/ a vendor, rather than when they have it as part of their internal structure.

Who will watch the watchmen? They will watch themselves, if there's a realistic chance they'll be fired, prosecuted, etc. That's excactly what competition gives you.

(12-29-2009 12:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.

What makes you think that corruption and lack of competition would not be the logical outcome. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?

It's a concern. It's a concern w/ the current security staff.

All I can say is, it makes me feel better when an airline can cancel a contract w/ a vendor, rather than when they have it as part of their internal structure.

Who will watch the watchmen? They will watch themselves, if there's a realistic chance they'll be fired, prosecuted, etc. That's excactly what competition gives you.

I'm sure a min. wage security force will police themselves. Hows that working down in MEXICO against the drug cartels?

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

The Airline industry would have to respond to market signals if the government stopped providing that function. Consumers would demand it and they would have to respond. Have they not already by beefing up the cockpit doors to increase safety? Im sure there has also been many other things they have done that I'm not aware of.
I would submit that banks ARE concerned with security. They are very aware that law enforcement usually responds "after" the robbery. Bullet proof glass,vast video surveillance,vaults,anti-fraud procedures and training are just a few of the things they do to try and protect themselves and deter crime. If law enforcement was capable of protecting banks there would be no need to even lock the doors of the banks.

I'm always in favor of looking to the marketplace for solutions to problems before resulting in the theft of others wealth to solve them through a coercive government solutions. What is wrong with that?

(12-29-2009 02:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 12:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.

What makes you think that corruption and lack of competition would not be the logical outcome. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?

It's a concern. It's a concern w/ the current security staff.

All I can say is, it makes me feel better when an airline can cancel a contract w/ a vendor, rather than when they have it as part of their internal structure.

Who will watch the watchmen? They will watch themselves, if there's a realistic chance they'll be fired, prosecuted, etc. That's excactly what competition gives you.

I'm sure a min. wage security force will police themselves. Hows that working down in MEXICO against the drug cartels?

Id submit that competition would insure that wages of these trained personnel would not be "minimum wage". Competition for the best employees always raises wages. I would submit that the marketplace would start certification procedures for this type of security occupation and those with that certification would be highly trained and sought after in this industry.

(12-29-2009 11:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.

Yes...I have absolutely no idea what the airline industry would come up with to address this issue since I am not in that business. Ask me about making plywood processing more efficient and I might have some ideas. Those in search of profit in this business are capable of finding and implementing the solutions. Granted...There will always be a evolution of solutions based on the threats.

(12-29-2009 03:01 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 02:14 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 12:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.

What makes you think that corruption and lack of competition would not be the logical outcome. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?

It's a concern. It's a concern w/ the current security staff.

All I can say is, it makes me feel better when an airline can cancel a contract w/ a vendor, rather than when they have it as part of their internal structure.

Who will watch the watchmen? They will watch themselves, if there's a realistic chance they'll be fired, prosecuted, etc. That's excactly what competition gives you.

I'm sure a min. wage security force will police themselves. Hows that working down in MEXICO against the drug cartels?

Id submit that competition would insure that wages of these trained personnel would not be "minimum wage". Competition for the best employees always raises wages. I would submit that the marketplace would start certification procedures for this type of security occupation and those with that certification would be highly trained and sought after in this industry.

If they could get away with it they would hire a workforce of illegals.

(12-29-2009 12:36 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:15 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.

What makes you think that corruption and lack of competition would not be the logical outcome. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchmen?

It's a concern. It's a concern w/ the current security staff.

All I can say is, it makes me feel better when an airline can cancel a contract w/ a vendor, rather than when they have it as part of their internal structure.

Who will watch the watchmen? They will watch themselves, if there's a realistic chance they'll be fired, prosecuted, etc. That's excactly what competition gives you.

Nothing would stop certification agencies and bonding agencies from entering this field to help monitor employees and even give continuing educational training. Bonding agencies would help companies protect themselves from employees that decide to become bad actors and add a level of professionalism to the vocation.

(12-29-2009 03:09 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.

Yes...I have absolutely no idea what the airline industry would come up with to address this issue since I am not in that business. Ask me about making plywood processing more efficient and I might have some ideas. Those in search of profit in this business are capable of finding and implementing the solutions. Granted...There will always be a evolution of solutions based on the threats.

I can tell you exactly what would happen. First consolidation of the industry (under the guise of synergy) then when there are only a few players left and become too big to fail...... I'll leave you to fill in the blanks after that.

(12-29-2009 03:21 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 03:09 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.

Yes...I have absolutely no idea what the airline industry would come up with to address this issue since I am not in that business. Ask me about making plywood processing more efficient and I might have some ideas. Those in search of profit in this business are capable of finding and implementing the solutions. Granted...There will always be a evolution of solutions based on the threats.

I can tell you exactly what would happen. First consolidation of the industry (under the guise of synergy) then when there are only a few players left and become too big to fail...... I'll leave you to fill in the blanks after that.

The industry is already consolidating. I don't care how many operators there are. If a monopoly occurs in aviation it will occur because that company is providing the best product,service and price in the market or the government "grants" someone a monopoly. One is fine...the other is evil.

(12-29-2009 03:21 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 03:09 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.

Yes...I have absolutely no idea what the airline industry would come up with to address this issue since I am not in that business. Ask me about making plywood processing more efficient and I might have some ideas. Those in search of profit in this business are capable of finding and implementing the solutions. Granted...There will always be a evolution of solutions based on the threats.

I can tell you exactly what would happen. First consolidation of the industry (under the guise of synergy) then when there are only a few players left and become too big to fail...... I'll leave you to fill in the blanks after that.

Too big to fail only happens when the gov't gets involved in some way. The growth of US Auto in the 1950s was aided by the gov't...which was happy to promise eternal prosperity to middle-class Joes. The only problem is it wasn't realistic. So we've seen decades of regulations, loans, protectionism, and bail-outs to help the industry, and to maintain unrealistic expectations.

In reality, if the industry hadn't been aided back then, we'd have seen them adapt much better (or die prior to being "too big to fail).

We might have seen GM sell the Firebird brand...my guess is there's still profit potential from Smokey and the Bandit fans...but that it's too small for a GM-sized company to take advantage of. Yet the cash from the sale would have been more than GM earns now from that small bit of IP.

More than likely we'd have watched GM spin off Oldsmobile and Saturn. As opposed to right now...now they're just gone. In the case of Saturn, it's possible that the tail would end up wagging the dog; we saw that with 3Com and Palm, and Woolworths spinning off Foot Locker.

Regardless, we'd have never fettered them with the expectations, no necessity of large annual revenues, and eternal pensions. We'd have a more lithe company, innovating and adapting (sometimes making mistakes, sometimes hitting homeruns), and best of all still in business.

We ALSO (and this is important) would probably see lower pay for CEOs. That's the current mantra, and it has some justification. Ironically, the people who scream the loudest about it are the ones who caused the problem.

(12-29-2009 04:17 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 03:21 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 03:09 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-29-2009 11:01 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fo the Airline industry want only to run airplanes. They do not want to have to worry about hijackings and terrorists. Just like the banks provide cursor security but do not want to act as law enforcement. You are on this marketplace solution for everything kick again.

In fairness, I think Fo would suggest that the airlines could contract with Blackwater, Brinks or whoever (even nobody) to provide security.

In all honesty, when I think of it that way: hiring in specialists to do the job, taking away incentives and opportunity for corruption, and providing competition for the airlines to select from...it might actually work.

Yes...I have absolutely no idea what the airline industry would come up with to address this issue since I am not in that business. Ask me about making plywood processing more efficient and I might have some ideas. Those in search of profit in this business are capable of finding and implementing the solutions. Granted...There will always be a evolution of solutions based on the threats.

I can tell you exactly what would happen. First consolidation of the industry (under the guise of synergy) then when there are only a few players left and become too big to fail...... I'll leave you to fill in the blanks after that.

Too big to fail only happens when the gov't gets involved in some way. The growth of US Auto in the 1950s was aided by the gov't...which was happy to promise eternal prosperity to middle-class Joes. The only problem is it wasn't realistic. So we've seen decades of regulations, loans, protectionism, and bail-outs to help the industry, and to maintain unrealistic expectations.

In reality, if the industry hadn't been aided back then, we'd have seen them adapt much better (or die prior to being "too big to fail).

We might have seen GM sell the Firebird brand...my guess is there's still profit potential from Smokey and the Bandit fans...but that it's too small for a GM-sized company to take advantage of. Yet the cash from the sale would have been more than GM earns now from that small bit of IP.

More than likely we'd have watched GM spin off Oldsmobile and Saturn. As opposed to right now...now they're just gone. In the case of Saturn, it's possible that the tail would end up wagging the dog; we saw that with 3Com and Palm, and Woolworths spinning off Foot Locker.

Regardless, we'd have never fettered them with the expectations, no necessity of large annual revenues, and eternal pensions. We'd have a more lithe company, innovating and adapting (sometimes making mistakes, sometimes hitting homeruns), and best of all still in business.

We ALSO (and this is important) would probably see lower pay for CEOs. That's the current mantra, and it has some justification. Ironically, the people who scream the loudest about it are the ones who caused the problem.

+1...Compete or get the hell out of the way of those that are. If you are failing it is YOUR fault. If I wish to support your business..I will do so because you offer me something in fair exchange for the fruits of my labor. I object to having to support failing businesses at the point of a gun. Propping up failing businesses only rewards their bad behavior and punishes those in their market for their success. The whole idea is counterproductive to innovation and growth of the marketplace.

The marketplace is self-regulating if left alone by governmental meddling. Is it perfect?..no. Are abuses possible by bad actors in the marketplace...yes. I'd submit though that the problems that statists like to throw around also happen with government regulation. The difference is that I get to CHOOSE where my money is spent in the free market. I have NO CHOICES when the government is involved..I must just allow it to steal my money from me and then...OBEY.