Gyroscopic Investing

TennPaGa wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: What basis do you have for making this assertion? The was video shot by passengers. Who altered the video then? Who else was in on the ruse? Why have no passengers stepped forward to say that it was not the same man?

Do you have any understanding of what means? You know, the emoji you left out of your quote of my post. I think you do since you not too long ago told me perhaps everything was a joke to me. Hope you are not losing it, or buried in your preconceived notions, or trapped in vincible ignorance. How's this? Are we good? or not? I choose to be .

Yeah, I saw the wink, but, to be honest, I wasn't exactly sure what the humor angle was in your post. Plus, my experience is that you will often include winks/emoji when trying to soften a serious point.

So, are we good? (no emoji)

Jack Jones wrote:I feel like this article covered the issues very well:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/ ... -fail.html

tldr: United didn't have the right to eject the passenger.

That is a fantastic article, Jack. And it's not even really an opinion piece; it's one of the few bits of actual investigative reporting about this incident that I've seen.

Really enjoyable read, Jack. It just highlights how lazy and superficial the press has become - not too unlike the United Airlines and Chicago airport security employees that had a hand in creating this incident.

I think the key observation in the article was this one:

Post-merger United is too big to fail, too big to manage and far too Balkanized to govern. I fully expect the ugliness to continue at United.

United can mistreat & squeeze passengers while reaping record profits because there's nothing to stop them. They're a monopoly, especially at their Chicago hub. Capitalism relies on competition to keep the wheels greased. No doubt this incident will result in a new set of regulations that won't fix the problem, but what's really needed is some good old fashioned, Warren Harding-style trust-busting.

Oddly enough, there's a lot more airline competition in Europe. There are a few People's Express type of puddle-jumper airlines there, like Ryanair, that I really wish we could have here in the US.

TennPaGa wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

TennPaGa wrote:Yeah, I saw the wink, but, to be honest, I wasn't exactly sure what the humor angle was in your post. Plus, my experience is that you will often include winks/emoji when trying to soften a serious point.

So, are we good? (no emoji)

Of course.

emoji.

farjean2 wrote: Checking on the Australia trip, the price was $32k for first class as opposed to about $3.2k for economy for the two of us. Sorry, it's not worth that much to avoid 18 hours of misery.

If you can afford it, the sweet spot on international flights is business class. It's light years better than what they call first class within the US, and a whole lot cheaper than international first class. For example, Cathay business class has seats that recline fully flat into a bed. From what I can tell, first class is more about insane levels of service and a "pod" that feels more like a home office.

Tyler wrote:

farjean2 wrote: Checking on the Australia trip, the price was $32k for first class as opposed to about $3.2k for economy for the two of us. Sorry, it's not worth that much to avoid 18 hours of misery.

If you can afford it, the sweet spot on international flights is business class. It's light years better than what they call first class within the US, and a whole lot cheaper than international first class. For example, Cathay business class has seats that recline fully flat into a bed. From what I can tell, first class is more about insane levels of service and a "pod" that feels more like a home office.

Tyler, it's often possible to fly international business for MUCH less than the "sticker price", usually by making bank on frequent flyer mile promotions from credit cards. I'd take advantage of the free trial on firstclassflyer.com to see if he has something good to recommend. thepointsguy.com is another good site to look for tips and tricks.

Thanks for the tip! Luckily I don't fly much any more, but the next time I do I'll check it out.

Even when the company wouldn't spring for business class, I had enough status that I'd occasionally get bumped into it for free at the gate when they wanted to fill out the main cabin. That was always a nice surprise.

Tyler wrote:Thanks for the tip! Luckily I don't fly much any more, but the next time I do I'll check it out.

Even when the company wouldn't spring for business class, I had enough status that I'd occasionally get bumped into it for free at the gate when they wanted to fill out the main cabin. That was always a nice surprise.

I've never had that good fortune. Getting into the business cabin going back and forth to South America took a lot of planning and research, as well as a fair amount of money, but I did it on two very long trips (Argentina and Uruguay).

Jack Jones wrote:I feel like this article covered the issues very well:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/ ... -fail.html
tldr: United didn't have the right to eject the passenger.

Very interesting, Jack. I learned a lot.

MangoMan wrote:

WiseOne wrote:
United can mistreat & squeeze passengers while reaping record profits because there's nothing to stop them. They're a monopoly, especially at their Chicago hub. Capitalism relies on competition to keep the wheels greased. No doubt this incident will result in a new set of regulations that won't fix the problem, but what's really needed is some good old fashioned, Warren Harding-style trust-busting.

They are far from a monopoly in Chicago. Every major airline and plenty of smaller ones fly in & out of O'hare, which is the second busiest airport in the US [used to be #1, now it's Atlanta]. Except Southwest, which only flies out of Midway.

You mean "both of them", right? United and American have absorbed most of the other airlines, or "partnered" with them.

Monopoly pricing can occur when there are four or fewer firms controlling over 50% of a given market. I guess technically you should call it an oligopoly, but the point still stands. This is clearly the case for airlines. I've read analyses of this same phenomenon in the food system, but none specifically about the effect on airline prices/services.

The only harmful kind of monopoly is coercive monopoly, in which no one is allowed to compete with the incumbent company or companies. It should go without saying that this can happen only if they have the government to enforce this restriction.

Natural monopolies, on the other hand, can occur when there is one firm that is just so good at what it does that no one can compete with them. This is fairly uncommon but does happen; Alcoa is a commonly cited example. The only way that a company can maintain their natural monopoly is to remain so efficient that no one is willing to try to compete with them, or loses if they do compete. This is a great benefit to the consumer.

The airline industry is mostly a coercive monopoly (oligopoly) because the US government prohibits foreign competitors from carrying passengers from one point to another in the US unless the route in question includes a foreign country. Thus, British Airways (for example) cannot carry passengers originating from New York to terminate in Los Angeles; only US-based airlines can do this. Obviously allowing such competition would be very likely to improve service and reduce costs, but this is up to the government to change.

Sorry can't resist (do not reply I'm just posting this for fun)...I'm sure it's another CIA false flag op because they are trying to break up the apparent Xi-Trump love fest.

Libertarian666 wrote:The airline industry is mostly a coercive monopoly (oligopoly) because the US government prohibits foreign competitors from carrying passengers from one point to another in the US unless the route in question includes a foreign country. Thus, British Airways (for example) cannot carry passengers originating from New York to terminate in Los Angeles; only US-based airlines can do this. Obviously allowing such competition would be very likely to improve service and reduce costs, but this is up to the government to change.

The government could have prevented the mergers that led to this state of affairs. The result was easy to predict: higher prices, worse service, and frankly abusive practices. The only weapon that consumers have left in their arsenal is the camera on their iPhones, leading to random US senators calling for investigations.

It would be useful if a true journalist, if any even exist anymore, could have investigated the reasons behind these mergers. Perhaps it was creeping or post-9/11 over-regulation, for example. But I couldn't find any article even venturing to speculate.

tech, you seem to know a lot about companies for someone who shuns stocks.
Is it just a personal interest, or you had to learn this stuff for work?

dualstow wrote:tech, you seem to know a lot about companies for someone who shuns stocks.
Is it just a personal interest, or you had to learn this stuff for work?

I read a lot about financial and political topics because I want to have some idea what is going on the world aside from what I observe personally.

Also, I used to run a standard 4x25 PP, so I spent quite a bit of time learning about the stock and bond markets.

Just got an email from Google flights to inform me of a $506 price drop for two tickets to Sydney, Australia in September.

Guess which Airlines.

That was a crazy list. This song pretty much covers the bases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKpQRjj_WbU

God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.