Skip to main content

Airport Economics: A Demonstration of Self-Governance

Lines to the gate are governed by not a single force of institutionalized law but rather by the sum forces of self-regulating personal discretion. There needn't exist a single law enumerating the appropriate dimensions of these lines or the velocity thereof. Personal perceptions and adaptations suffice to operate these lines, and while some people may criticize these lines while they remain standing in them, some passengers have learned to maximize their relaxation and minimize their standing wait time by remaining seated at the gate, while their counterparts recognize an opportunity to invest their time in securing their respective advantages in line. When government regulates the markets, it assumes a ubiquity of preferences irrespective of extenuating circumstances or priorities. 

One might sensibly advocate on behalf of "efficiency" by suggesting a method of expedited line formation and processing. In order to accomplish this end, force or protracted conditioning, the latter of which would likely still require force, would become necessary, as revealed by the consistent revelation of sum preferences at gates. At what expense might this measure of "efficiency" be attained? One might suggest employing a line liaison to limit access to the line, categorizing passengers by groups. This has already been accomplished by the airline business. Next, one might recommend a liaison who requires passengers to show boarding passes before entering the line, and who ushers them through the line if failing to sustain optimal velocity, however arbitrarily that could ever be defined. That liaison could restrict the movement of passengers in the line, refusing their departure from the line after they have been admitted entrance. 


My personal experience shows that passengers are usually holding their boarding passes by the time they have entered the line, rendering this process superfluous. They typically have their own reasons, however seemingly trivial, for walking at whatever pace or for deviating from the line's predetermined pattern of spacing or linear formation. They also hold personal reasons for entering and departing the line, and the reasons for these actions and those aforementioned might be related to a myriad of possible medical conditions, traumatic experiences, forgotten property, or limitless idiosyncratic human behaviors. In the end, the individual is his own best advocate and governor. It is even possible that the force required to eliminate disruptions to this ill-defined style of "efficiency" would measurably increase costs by employing liaisons or, let's venture into the seemingly absurd, establishing credit-checking institutions which assign values to passengers based upon line performance history. 

These measures of forcible removal could likely even reduce the velocity of the line, outstripping the costs imposed by a passenger merely fumbling with his luggage and straddling a position between the line and standby, all while spontaneously diminishing the value of the overall travel experience. So, at what expense might these lines become more "efficient"? In this case, it seems possible only through an imposition of further costs or by a suspension of liberty and respect for the uniqueness of human life. 

Some who are reading this might contend that this is a silly economic survey of human behavior, but this is precisely what government does when it legislates to advance platitudinous causes under the name of universal or common good, such as the livable wage, affordable housing and education, inflation targeting, health and safety, national defense, supplemental income, equitable distribution of wealth, minority rights, and equality. Government is able to advertise this end only at the guaranteed expense of the individual and his vast, unique, complex, and incalculable preferences in life.

Comments

  1. I have just downloaded iStripper, and now I can watch the sexiest virtual strippers on my desktop.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters.  In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity.  Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility.  Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue. What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the f

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi