Can you educate the rest of us by explaining your reasoning?

throwawayqqq11 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Breaking down complex topics into binary black and white doesnt have to be wrong. The more important part is, how much wealth they extracted and how exactly. Was it market dominance with a superior product or amoral cost externalization.

The angle of treating transportation as regulated utility shifts the business focus away from profit onto providing services, which sometimes can cost more than your income. Similarly, would you close schools, because they didnt make enough money? Airlines are highly subsidized anyway, treating them as regulated utilities falls short of taking public ownership as public institutions, where services just cost money/subsidies.

	▲	eru 40 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Similarly, would you close schools, because they didnt make enough money? Yes, of course. We should separate school and state. > Airlines are highly subsidized anyway, treating them as regulated utilities falls short of taking public ownership as public institutions, where services just cost money/subsidies. How are they highly subsidized? And where? Perhaps we should fix that, instead of adding to the problem? Two wrongs don't make a right.
	▲	kennywinker 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Utilities and transportation should be public services, and they are in many places. Sometimes it works well, other times it works less well… usually because the capitalists lobby it into neglect and then say “see it’s not working / losing money let the private sector take over”.

▲

roxolotl 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not op but I also agree with the framing assuming you add “and they provide a vital service” to both. If a vital service is being used to extract profits it should be regulated so that equal access to the vital service can be provided. If a vital service is being provided but cannot make money it should be regulated so that it can be sustained since it is vital.

Now what is vital? Is Spirit vital? That’s the hard to define part.

▲

card_zero 2 hours ago | parent [-]

1. "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay for it!"

2. "We won't pay for this, but we still want to have it!"

These are of course both fair points. Why should we "pay for" things, what's that all about? We should just naturally have the natural things that we naturally want, supplied by pixies.

▲

sailfast 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think they're both actually "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay too much for it just so a CEO can make 10,000x their workers and potentially ALSO still lose money."

	▲	eru 24 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		How much of the money goes to CEO vs shareholders is something they can work out between themselves. If the airline goes bankrupt, that just means that the creditors get less than they otherwise expected. That's something to haggle out between creditors and management and shareholders. (Or do you want to imply that if the shareholders saved money on CEO compensation, they would give the money to ordinary workers?)
	▲	card_zero an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Right, but what makes that viable? Something so topheavy ought to go the way of the Irish elk.

▲

bigyabai 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Companies like John-Deere should be able to survive without abusing their downstream customers. Many farmers are importing tractors from China because they're cheap and not hostile to repair like JD is. Some people might call it a "smart business model" to sell interdependent services, but in the long-term it's suicide.

Whether or not you solve this through regulation, that's up to you.

	▲	card_zero 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It would be nice if companies could commit suicide faster, instead of dragging it out over several decades.

▲

kennywinker 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The extremes of capitalism have a negative impact on people’s lives.

The first scenario it harms us by under-serving and scammy practices, the second scenario it’s over-extractive and funneling money from the many to the few.