Re: Neoclassical bizarreness!!!

[Daniel Davies <dsquared@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have some sympathy with David's point of view here; there is nothing in
particular wrong with bankruptcy.  On the other hand, the massive,
systematic use of bankruptcy in the airline industry as a normal part of
financial operations rather than an extreme measure, does surely indicate
some underlying problem.  It's rather like insurance claims (in fact you can
model the use of bankruptcy protection as a form of insurance) - insurance
claims are a normal part of the efficient running of a capitalist system but
if you've got a small group of claimants making big claims every year then
something is up.

best
dd

-----Original Message-----
From: PEN-L list [mailto:PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of David B.
Shemano
Sent: 20 September 2005 20:53
To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Neoclassical bizarreness!!!


Did someone mention my name?

I agree that the article was quite good.  However, I did not follow why the
story supports the notion that deregulation did (does) not work.  Why is
bankruptcy evidence of systemic failure?  Why should the shareholders of
airlines, as opposed to any other industry, be guaranteed a rate of return?
Why should the employees of airlines, as opposed to any other industry, be
guaranteed employment and a specific level of wages and benefits?
>>