Surprise! National Review thinks the market
October 30, 2001 8:18 AM Subscribe
Surprise! National Review thinks the market can provide for better airport security. Talk about ignoring evidence...
The article uses the analogy of computer security, yet Microsoft, if I'm not mistaken, makes some of the least secure, buggy software around. Yet they're by far the biggest, and wealthiest. The most successful in the marketplace. Linux, by comparison, is not driven by the marketplace, but by community standards, and most would say that it has less security holes than Windows.
The goal of a business is to produce a profit. To put as little as possible into that business in order to turn the largest possible profit.
His system of "smuggling" firms competing with Airport security is absurd. "allow ordinary Americans to engage in fake smuggling. Perhaps at an airport gift shop you could buy a fake gun which would earn you a free flight if you get it onto your plane." What the hell?
posted by Doug at 8:44 AM on October 30, 2001
The goal of a business is to produce a profit. To put as little as possible into that business in order to turn the largest possible profit.
His system of "smuggling" firms competing with Airport security is absurd. "allow ordinary Americans to engage in fake smuggling. Perhaps at an airport gift shop you could buy a fake gun which would earn you a free flight if you get it onto your plane." What the hell?
posted by Doug at 8:44 AM on October 30, 2001
...perhaps OT...
Newfangled funding ideas are great and all, but sadly Logan at least, there's no money left to fund additional security measures...since departing MassPort (the organization that oversees Logan) executive director Virginia Buckingham is getting a nice, cozy, $175,000 severance package. Other MassPort managers, facing layoffs due to the financial trouble the authority is in, only get 10 weeks of severance, compared to Buckingham's 9 months.
I know, bitch bitch bitch, this is...i mean...c'mon...
posted by tpl1212 at 8:54 AM on October 30, 2001
Newfangled funding ideas are great and all, but sadly Logan at least, there's no money left to fund additional security measures...since departing MassPort (the organization that oversees Logan) executive director Virginia Buckingham is getting a nice, cozy, $175,000 severance package. Other MassPort managers, facing layoffs due to the financial trouble the authority is in, only get 10 weeks of severance, compared to Buckingham's 9 months.
I know, bitch bitch bitch, this is...i mean...c'mon...
posted by tpl1212 at 8:54 AM on October 30, 2001
"Let's have capitalism protect our skies."
Well it's been doing such a great job so far, oh,.. never mind.
Right wing economists generally think that financial gain and efficiency are the ONLY considerations.
posted by Red58 at 8:56 AM on October 30, 2001
Well it's been doing such a great job so far, oh,.. never mind.
Right wing economists generally think that financial gain and efficiency are the ONLY considerations.
posted by Red58 at 8:56 AM on October 30, 2001
Of course the market can produce better security, with only slight role of the govt. Imagine the folllowing:
The govt sets specific high fines for different infractions in security. The govt tests this security by sending in agents to test the setups and break through them. If they succeed, the airlines get a big-ass fine that really hurts their bottom line. If an agent fails, he or she moves on.
I bet the airlines would have an air-tight security in place overnight.
Up until now, the FAA didn't even bother to fine airlines for security violations. And given that the customer wants convenience, there was absolutely no reason for the airlines to bother with security issues.
posted by Witold at 9:24 AM on October 30, 2001
The govt sets specific high fines for different infractions in security. The govt tests this security by sending in agents to test the setups and break through them. If they succeed, the airlines get a big-ass fine that really hurts their bottom line. If an agent fails, he or she moves on.
I bet the airlines would have an air-tight security in place overnight.
Up until now, the FAA didn't even bother to fine airlines for security violations. And given that the customer wants convenience, there was absolutely no reason for the airlines to bother with security issues.
posted by Witold at 9:24 AM on October 30, 2001
I agree with Witold that a results-driven, rather than mehod-driven, enforcement plan is best.
If the FAA prescribes particular, uniform methods, we won't know they're flawed until disater strikes. However, if we use a results-driven testing regime and allow each airline to figure out for itself how to thwart all possible comers, with serious consequences if they fail, they will.
The testing, as well, should be opened up to the market. Let anyone be a tester - reward them well if they find a flaw.
That will, over time, expose just about every possible security hole.
posted by mikewas at 9:31 AM on October 30, 2001
If the FAA prescribes particular, uniform methods, we won't know they're flawed until disater strikes. However, if we use a results-driven testing regime and allow each airline to figure out for itself how to thwart all possible comers, with serious consequences if they fail, they will.
The testing, as well, should be opened up to the market. Let anyone be a tester - reward them well if they find a flaw.
That will, over time, expose just about every possible security hole.
posted by mikewas at 9:31 AM on October 30, 2001
It all comes down to cost-benefit analysis. The airlines have always lived by this credo when deciding whether to perform safety modifications, etc. Why should we expect them to act differently in the current situation?
Perhaps, as the author suggests, a private company will come up with an innovative concept in airline security, but until then I have a LOT more faith in armed federal agents.
posted by groundhog at 9:46 AM on October 30, 2001
Perhaps, as the author suggests, a private company will come up with an innovative concept in airline security, but until then I have a LOT more faith in armed federal agents.
posted by groundhog at 9:46 AM on October 30, 2001
Free-market high priests respond to any apparent market failure in the same way that their religious counterparts do: "You didn't pray hard enough," or: "Your markets weren't free enough."
While I support the exploration of options other than total federalization of airport security, it stands to reason that airport security should be heavily regulated by the government. Simply put: airport security, like all police agencies, are not and should not be a profit industry. Its benefits are not to any one group of shareholders, but to society at large. This is a point which does not compute with your average free marketeer.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:02 AM on October 30, 2001
While I support the exploration of options other than total federalization of airport security, it stands to reason that airport security should be heavily regulated by the government. Simply put: airport security, like all police agencies, are not and should not be a profit industry. Its benefits are not to any one group of shareholders, but to society at large. This is a point which does not compute with your average free marketeer.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:02 AM on October 30, 2001
Ty, is this your pet issue? This is the second link you've posted about the so-called "free market failure" re: airport security.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:06 AM on October 30, 2001
posted by ljromanoff at 11:06 AM on October 30, 2001
Having been a government worker, I wouldn't want to trust my safety to an employment status easily capable of unionization -- I've seen how hard it is to motivate people, even with regulations, to do the right thing.
Remember our cases of police misconduct? The Blue Flu? The wall of silence surrounding "their own"? Imagine their response to regulatory oversight from the FAA, then! Without fear of reprisals very few employees do the right thing.
I'll be happier with someone motivated by the fear that drives most employees -- loss of work, fines, and imprisonment. If they can guarantee that, we're set. But, when the union comes in......
posted by dwivian at 11:10 AM on October 30, 2001
Remember our cases of police misconduct? The Blue Flu? The wall of silence surrounding "their own"? Imagine their response to regulatory oversight from the FAA, then! Without fear of reprisals very few employees do the right thing.
I'll be happier with someone motivated by the fear that drives most employees -- loss of work, fines, and imprisonment. If they can guarantee that, we're set. But, when the union comes in......
posted by dwivian at 11:10 AM on October 30, 2001
The limits of the market in providing for public welfare is one of my pet issues, yes.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:10 AM on October 30, 2001
posted by Ty Webb at 11:10 AM on October 30, 2001
The linked article is really disappointing, because it argues a good point poorly.
The problem with airport security is not that the guy sitting behind the X-Ray machine gets his paycheck from a contractor instead of Uncle Sam. The problem is that the FAA, airlines, and passengers were willing to accept token security in exchange for convenience and low fares.
If that's changed, all that the feds need to do is to say "these are the new minimum standards for security. We'll be checking up on you, and if the standards aren't met, we'll fine the airline, the contractor, and anyone else standing around looking guilty." While the single-minded search for profits leads corporations to do a lot of questionable things, it makes it easy to modify their behavior.
posted by jaek at 11:15 AM on October 30, 2001
The problem with airport security is not that the guy sitting behind the X-Ray machine gets his paycheck from a contractor instead of Uncle Sam. The problem is that the FAA, airlines, and passengers were willing to accept token security in exchange for convenience and low fares.
If that's changed, all that the feds need to do is to say "these are the new minimum standards for security. We'll be checking up on you, and if the standards aren't met, we'll fine the airline, the contractor, and anyone else standing around looking guilty." While the single-minded search for profits leads corporations to do a lot of questionable things, it makes it easy to modify their behavior.
posted by jaek at 11:15 AM on October 30, 2001
jaek,
I agree with your point about airline customers preferring convenience to genuine safety. We could enlarge this point to include, say, the price of gasoline. Americans pay far lower prices at the pump, but end up paying far more in other ways: taxpayer subsidies to multimillion dollar oil companies, huge taxpayer layouts for the military needed to enforce and secure our access to Middle east oil, not to mention a contradictory and morally repugnant foreign policy which props up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria in exchange for the continued flow of petrol.
This is what's known as "actual cost."
posted by Ty Webb at 11:22 AM on October 30, 2001
I agree with your point about airline customers preferring convenience to genuine safety. We could enlarge this point to include, say, the price of gasoline. Americans pay far lower prices at the pump, but end up paying far more in other ways: taxpayer subsidies to multimillion dollar oil companies, huge taxpayer layouts for the military needed to enforce and secure our access to Middle east oil, not to mention a contradictory and morally repugnant foreign policy which props up dictatorships like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria in exchange for the continued flow of petrol.
This is what's known as "actual cost."
posted by Ty Webb at 11:22 AM on October 30, 2001
The trick is to avoid simplistic "Government Bad" or "Capitalism Bad."
As jaek hinted at, the right way to look at it is to ask yourself what incentive system is being established by the proposed solution. A solution that has the government farm out security to the lowest bidder will result in krep.
A system like the one that Witold outlined is much wiser in its understanding of how people would act within the system. It doesn't rely on hopeful wishes or leaders of infinite wisdom. Make it so each level of the chain of command has the proper incentive structure to do the proper thing, and you have the best possible solution.
posted by marknau at 11:46 AM on October 30, 2001
As jaek hinted at, the right way to look at it is to ask yourself what incentive system is being established by the proposed solution. A solution that has the government farm out security to the lowest bidder will result in krep.
A system like the one that Witold outlined is much wiser in its understanding of how people would act within the system. It doesn't rely on hopeful wishes or leaders of infinite wisdom. Make it so each level of the chain of command has the proper incentive structure to do the proper thing, and you have the best possible solution.
posted by marknau at 11:46 AM on October 30, 2001
The limits of the market in providing for public welfare is one of my pet issues, yes.
As there are not market forces at work here (to any great degree), nor is airport security anything close to an either mostly private or mostly public enterprise, I fail to see how you can blame the free market for what happened 9/11. Do you really believe that had everyone working at Logan Airport on that day been government workers that the outcome would have been different?
posted by ljromanoff at 12:02 PM on October 30, 2001
As there are not market forces at work here (to any great degree), nor is airport security anything close to an either mostly private or mostly public enterprise, I fail to see how you can blame the free market for what happened 9/11. Do you really believe that had everyone working at Logan Airport on that day been government workers that the outcome would have been different?
posted by ljromanoff at 12:02 PM on October 30, 2001
I fail to see how you can blame the free market for what happened 9/11.
ljromanoff,
I don't blame the free market for what happened on 9-11, but I think the events of that day did bring much needed attention to the market's inadequacy in providing for public safety. There had been many reports of lax airports security for years, but no one, not the FAA, or the airlines, or the security companies themselves, did much to improve it.
there are not market forces at work here (to any great degree),
sorry, ljromanoff, but your statement is simply false. Airport security is contracted out by the airlines through a low-bid system.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:20 PM on October 30, 2001
ljromanoff,
I don't blame the free market for what happened on 9-11, but I think the events of that day did bring much needed attention to the market's inadequacy in providing for public safety. There had been many reports of lax airports security for years, but no one, not the FAA, or the airlines, or the security companies themselves, did much to improve it.
there are not market forces at work here (to any great degree),
sorry, ljromanoff, but your statement is simply false. Airport security is contracted out by the airlines through a low-bid system.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:20 PM on October 30, 2001
sorry, ljromanoff, but your statement is simply false. Airport security is contracted out by the airlines through a low-bid system.
No, my statement was accurate. In fact, airport security is the joint responsibility of the FAA, airport operators, and airlines. The passenger screening is run by the airlines, not the entire security system. Regardless of who ran the passenger screening on 9/11, the hijackers carried short bladed knives and box cutters, which were allowed items on aircraft - allowed by FAA rules. Moving to a purely government system would have changed nothing on that day.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:40 PM on October 30, 2001
No, my statement was accurate. In fact, airport security is the joint responsibility of the FAA, airport operators, and airlines. The passenger screening is run by the airlines, not the entire security system. Regardless of who ran the passenger screening on 9/11, the hijackers carried short bladed knives and box cutters, which were allowed items on aircraft - allowed by FAA rules. Moving to a purely government system would have changed nothing on that day.
posted by ljromanoff at 12:40 PM on October 30, 2001
ljromanoff,
low-bid security contracts are, by definition, market controlled.
Airlines and security contractors have for years fought against tighter FAA regulation which would increase costs and negaticely affect their bottom line, another factor which is market related.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:45 PM on October 30, 2001
low-bid security contracts are, by definition, market controlled.
Airlines and security contractors have for years fought against tighter FAA regulation which would increase costs and negaticely affect their bottom line, another factor which is market related.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:45 PM on October 30, 2001
ljromanoff,
low-bid security contracts are, by definition, market controlled.
I'm not disputing that. You, however, have confused baggage screeners for the entire airport security system.
Airlines and security contractors have for years fought against tighter FAA regulation which would increase costs and negaticely affect their bottom line, another factor which is market related.
Tighter regulations that would have increased costs and likely have made no difference on the 11th of September. The FAA, at Logan and elsewhere, has hardly been performing their portion of airport security adequately either; their security tests are notoriously bad, and the FAA agents at Logan (for example) have long-term morale problems due to poor management. Their enforcement of their own rules is not aggressive in many cases.
A further example of the ineptitude of the government run branch of airport security is Massport - the state agency that maintains access to most passenger-restricted areas (such as the tarmac and baggage handling areas) at Logan. Massport is corrupt and rife with political patronage. Its two top officials, security chief Joseph Lawless and head administrator Virginia Buckingham, were demoted or resigned under pressure due to their lack of experience in airline safety and were both hired as political favors. Also, it is under equipped. For example, the State Police office at the airport has no closed-circuit television capacity to monitor checkpoints, boarding gates, ramp areas, or the airport's perimeter entrances. If an alarm goes off at a secure doorway, officers cannot tell where it is.
The idea that the security failures on 9/11 can simply be categorized as "market failures" is highly questionable.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:39 PM on October 30, 2001
low-bid security contracts are, by definition, market controlled.
I'm not disputing that. You, however, have confused baggage screeners for the entire airport security system.
Airlines and security contractors have for years fought against tighter FAA regulation which would increase costs and negaticely affect their bottom line, another factor which is market related.
Tighter regulations that would have increased costs and likely have made no difference on the 11th of September. The FAA, at Logan and elsewhere, has hardly been performing their portion of airport security adequately either; their security tests are notoriously bad, and the FAA agents at Logan (for example) have long-term morale problems due to poor management. Their enforcement of their own rules is not aggressive in many cases.
A further example of the ineptitude of the government run branch of airport security is Massport - the state agency that maintains access to most passenger-restricted areas (such as the tarmac and baggage handling areas) at Logan. Massport is corrupt and rife with political patronage. Its two top officials, security chief Joseph Lawless and head administrator Virginia Buckingham, were demoted or resigned under pressure due to their lack of experience in airline safety and were both hired as political favors. Also, it is under equipped. For example, the State Police office at the airport has no closed-circuit television capacity to monitor checkpoints, boarding gates, ramp areas, or the airport's perimeter entrances. If an alarm goes off at a secure doorway, officers cannot tell where it is.
The idea that the security failures on 9/11 can simply be categorized as "market failures" is highly questionable.
posted by ljromanoff at 1:39 PM on October 30, 2001
The idea that the security failures on 9/11 can simply be categorized as "market failures" is highly questionable.
ljromanoff, you keep hacking away at that strawman. Here, let me repeat:
I don't blame the free market for what happened on 9-11, but I think the events of that day did bring much needed attention to the market's inadequacy in providing for public safety.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:53 PM on October 30, 2001
ljromanoff, you keep hacking away at that strawman. Here, let me repeat:
I don't blame the free market for what happened on 9-11, but I think the events of that day did bring much needed attention to the market's inadequacy in providing for public safety.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:53 PM on October 30, 2001
I don't blame the free market for what happened on 9-11, but I think the events of that day did bring much needed attention to the market's inadequacy in providing for public safety.
Do they also bring much needed attention to the government's inadequacy in providing for public safety? There is certainly much more evidence damning the government agencies responsible for public safety than anything that can be related to "the market."
posted by ljromanoff at 2:00 PM on October 30, 2001
Do they also bring much needed attention to the government's inadequacy in providing for public safety? There is certainly much more evidence damning the government agencies responsible for public safety than anything that can be related to "the market."
posted by ljromanoff at 2:00 PM on October 30, 2001
I don't blame the free market for what happened on 9-11, but I think the events of that day did bring much needed attention to the market's inadequacy in providing for public safety.
Do they also bring much needed attention to the government's inadequacy in providing for public safety? There is certainly much more evidence damning the government agencies responsible for public safety than anything that can be related to "the market."
posted by ljromanoff at 2:02 PM on October 30, 2001
Do they also bring much needed attention to the government's inadequacy in providing for public safety? There is certainly much more evidence damning the government agencies responsible for public safety than anything that can be related to "the market."
posted by ljromanoff at 2:02 PM on October 30, 2001
Sorry about double post. MeFi crash during posting.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:03 PM on October 30, 2001
posted by ljromanoff at 2:03 PM on October 30, 2001
Do they also bring much needed attention to the government's inadequacy in providing for public safety?
Absolutely. In this case, the government abdicated it's role in ensuring security because of political pressure against raising the cost of security, and, therefore, the cost of air travel. The government incorrectly caved to pressure generatedby market concerns.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:10 PM on October 30, 2001
Absolutely. In this case, the government abdicated it's role in ensuring security because of political pressure against raising the cost of security, and, therefore, the cost of air travel. The government incorrectly caved to pressure generatedby market concerns.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:10 PM on October 30, 2001
Absolutely. In this case, the government abdicated it's role in ensuring security because of political pressure against raising the cost of security, and, therefore, the cost of air travel. The government incorrectly caved to pressure generatedby market concerns.
That's an interesting twisting of the facts. It would not have raised the cost of air travel a penny to actually hire competent people to run public agencies like Massport.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:19 PM on October 30, 2001
That's an interesting twisting of the facts. It would not have raised the cost of air travel a penny to actually hire competent people to run public agencies like Massport.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:19 PM on October 30, 2001
It would not have raised the cost of air travel a penny to actually hire competent people to run public agencies like Massport.
Please see my comment above regarding actual cost. It doesn't matter who you have staffing an agency if the regulations they are supposed to be enforcing are impotent to begin with.
The fact that these agencies are underfunded is an important issue, but a separate one.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:31 PM on October 30, 2001
Please see my comment above regarding actual cost. It doesn't matter who you have staffing an agency if the regulations they are supposed to be enforcing are impotent to begin with.
The fact that these agencies are underfunded is an important issue, but a separate one.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:31 PM on October 30, 2001
Please see my comment above regarding actual cost. It doesn't matter who you have staffing an agency if the regulations they are supposed to be enforcing are impotent to begin with.
It's not the regulations that are the problem. No amount of added regulation would have made Massport a more effective safety organization. Conversely, had Massport and the FAA actually had skilled people in their employ, 9/11 may have been different. Your blind faith in further regulation is misplaced.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:49 PM on October 30, 2001
It's not the regulations that are the problem. No amount of added regulation would have made Massport a more effective safety organization. Conversely, had Massport and the FAA actually had skilled people in their employ, 9/11 may have been different. Your blind faith in further regulation is misplaced.
posted by ljromanoff at 2:49 PM on October 30, 2001
Your blind faith in further regulation is misplaced.
No need to get bitchy. I agree that neither the market or the government is an answer in and of itself, whereas you seem committed to the idea that the profit motive will rectify a situation in which profit is admittedly not the highest priority.
But it's been fun watching you chase your own tail.
posted by Ty Webb at 3:00 PM on October 30, 2001
No need to get bitchy. I agree that neither the market or the government is an answer in and of itself, whereas you seem committed to the idea that the profit motive will rectify a situation in which profit is admittedly not the highest priority.
But it's been fun watching you chase your own tail.
posted by Ty Webb at 3:00 PM on October 30, 2001
I agree that neither the market or the government is an answer in and of itself, whereas you seem committed to the idea that the profit motive will rectify a situation in which profit is admittedly not the highest priority.
If you reread what I wrote (or perhaps read it to begin with) you will note that I never claimed that market solutions were a salvation of any kind.
But it's been fun watching you chase your own tail.
It's been fun watching you backpedal and ignore the facts in pursuit of your own agenda.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:09 PM on October 30, 2001
If you reread what I wrote (or perhaps read it to begin with) you will note that I never claimed that market solutions were a salvation of any kind.
But it's been fun watching you chase your own tail.
It's been fun watching you backpedal and ignore the facts in pursuit of your own agenda.
posted by ljromanoff at 3:09 PM on October 30, 2001
(begin trite South Park reference)
OK gents, I call shenanigans on both of you.
(end trite South Park reference)
posted by aramaic at 3:15 PM on October 30, 2001
OK gents, I call shenanigans on both of you.
(end trite South Park reference)
posted by aramaic at 3:15 PM on October 30, 2001
It's been fun watching you backpedal and ignore the facts in pursuit of your own agenda.
Please come up with your own original insult and don't just rewrite mine. Geez, some people...
posted by Ty Webb at 3:18 PM on October 30, 2001
Please come up with your own original insult and don't just rewrite mine. Geez, some people...
posted by Ty Webb at 3:18 PM on October 30, 2001
Please come up with your own original insult and don't just rewrite mine. Geez, some people...
You're completely right. There are much more interesting sources of material out there than your contributions.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:54 PM on October 30, 2001
You're completely right. There are much more interesting sources of material out there than your contributions.
posted by ljromanoff at 4:54 PM on October 30, 2001
Poor Work Tolerated, Employees Say--Many in Survey Fault [government] Agencies for Not Cracking Down on Subpar Performers Now a new study concludes that federal workers themselves view many of their co-workers as poor performers who are rarely disciplined.
posted by phartizan at 5:45 PM on October 30, 2001
posted by phartizan at 5:45 PM on October 30, 2001
« Older Said's ideal Mid East proposal. | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dwivian at 8:22 AM on October 30, 2001