What’s with the constant, supposedly inevitable need for providing someone with a “profit”?
Does the Post Office need to produce a profit? Shouldn’t it instead be considered a service that taxes subsidize? Do highways need to provide a profit? Presumably you’d agree that those too are a public need that taxes should thus largely pay for.
It’s not inevitable that airlines be thought of as profit-seeking, wealth-producing enterprises. Given how more or less essential they are to modern life and to large swaths of the public, I don’t think they should be thought of that way.
“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin, Speech in Acceptance of the National Book Foundation Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters, November 19, 2014
I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. You’re talking about what should be, and I’m talking about what is. I’m saying that as it is, the airline industry as a whole operates at a loss; the price of air travel is not high enough as it is to justify better service, so that even without the profit motive, it’s a stretch to think that a nationalized air carrier would be better or cheaper, unless perhaps by consolidating all of our private carriers, you could realize some otherwise-impossible economy of scale. Which I doubt.
You’re saying air travel is essential (which I would argue with, but that’s a topic for another day), and for that reason should be nationalized. That’s not an argument that it would be cheaper or better: that’s a consequence of a philosophical position.
Let’s just make the circulating air on planes match that in The Magicians TV series’s magical realm of Fillory. It had a 0.02% opium content… Fillory | The Magicians Wiki | Fandom
They’re already infamous for flying every plane purchased 200+ miles offshore in order to sign the contracts in international airspace so they can avoid paying sales tax. And that’s just simple visible tax dodging through loopholes.
Do you have a source for that? Because most airlines don’t own their own planes, they lease them. Which is not to say the leasing company isn’t doing the same thing.
But the idea of a US society, or its government, let alone everyone else, effectively nationalising the airlines, after decisively deregulating them not so long ago, is a joke at this point. What are you - some sort of socialist? (And for the record, as I hope you know, I am!)
This is the reality:
I see absolutely no path forward for the US to become more democratic, more socialist (jeez - centrist would be progress!) or more beneficial as a society for its citizens at large. The right wing Democrat party may make some new regulations in some areas. The loony proto-fascist right wing Republican party will abolish them. It will be constant skirmishes back and forth until the whole edifice is finally seen to be crumbling (as it has been for some time). Maybe then there may be some move towards greater plurality (including the idea of airline regulation or nationalisation). I won’t be holding my breath.
(You may also consider my recent comments here, in the same vein - it’s basically the same topic:)
PS - forgive me for being a bit pissy today - not specifically aimed at you - just a slew of events that demonstrate, well, basically, we’re going down…
It’s something I’ve heard several times throughout my life, but when I went googling for it just now, I turned up zero hits. Not even an article on Snopes. It certainly has the potential to be an ancient hoax.
Regardless, Boeing’s real tax avoidance activities are plenty public:
Do I have to wait that long? Can’t I get knocked out as soon as my boarding pass is confirmed, before I have to have a walk on part in the security theater? (Bonus: Less need for that if everyone is asleep, right?) It could be like getting anesthesia for surgery. "Hmm. Wonder when this is going to start wo … " and then you’re at your destination.
Indeed. But airlines? Basic democracy would be a better place to start.
But real utilities like water, power, sewage/drainage (possibly internet/telecoms), railways, must be way higher up the list than airlines, surely.
Using your criteria, given “how essential they arefood is to modern life and to large swaths of the public” are you suggesting the food supply industry (supermarkets and food stores) should be treated the same way you wish airlines to be treated?
Fair enough, but that may be beyond socialist and verging on something else.
Is that a thing? Because you’d still owe use tax in, say, California, for a purchase imported into California. Well, at least us ordinary peons would. Not sure about corporations and rich people
Neoliberal capitalism used to be called Robber Barons in America, and before that it was “Dickensian London”, and before that it was “Industrialisation and the Georgian Enclosures”.
It’s not new, it’s just that they’ve been getting better at it.
I’d be down with that. Yes, I’m willing to negotiate on the specific details, so people aren’t getting beer for free and those that want it can still buy “premium junk food.” I feel the same way about housing and clothing, too.
(And for the record, as I hope you know, I am!)
