When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical? • Hacker News Board

Re: When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical?

#61

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:48 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #54

asift wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation is part of a free market, but governmental regulation is not (i.e., regulation imposed by a monopolistic entity). There are many forms of private governance and regulation that protect consumers. That's not to say free markets are utopias, but believing that governments are the only source of regulation is incorrect. In fact, in many cases private governance is far more effective (e.g., the private regulat…

> Regulation is part of a free market, but governmental regulation is not Until someone comes, holds a gun to your face and takes your sandwich. Then you'll be thankful for government regulation. I'm absolutely certain that the government's (attempt of a) monopoly on violence is one of the most crucial aspects of free markets. Another is contract law.

Governments did not came from outer space, nor are they form a separate magisterium that's unrelated to free market. It's something that naturally forms as society grows larger than few hundred members and the simple interpersonal methods of coordination and punishing defectors (like losing support of the whole clan if you cheat) stop working. The whole idea of separating government from market models seems strange to me.

Frankly, I fail to see how you can hold a working market in a big population without a somewhat monopolized government structure. If suddenly, say, the USGOV disappeared, leaving behind a libertarian utopia, I'm pretty sure it would quickly degenerate into acts of violence, an era of warlords and famine, after which people would probably figure out that a single entity enforcing some rules was generally not a bad idea.

Re: When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical?

#62

Post by asift » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:50 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #54

asift wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation is part of a free market, but governmental regulation is not (i.e., regulation imposed by a monopolistic entity). There are many forms of private governance and regulation that protect consumers. That's not to say free markets are utopias, but believing that governments are the only source of regulation is incorrect. In fact, in many cases private governance is far more effective (e.g., the private regulat…

> Regulation is part of a free market, but governmental regulation is not Until someone comes, holds a gun to your face and takes your sandwich. Then you'll be thankful for government regulation. I'm absolutely certain that the government's (attempt of a) monopoly on violence is one of the most crucial aspects of free markets. Another is contract law.

There are reasonable and intelligent criticisms of market institutions. This is not one of them.

Exactly what recourse would I have against someone who stole my sandwich? Unless I know the person or there is solid evidence to identify the individual, the costs of investigation and prosecution far exceed the value to be recouped. Police will take my information, file a report, and nothing else will happen.

Not only is that state not helpful under these conditions, but private institutions have often found solutions to similar problems before the government does. Look at Paypal. They faced very similar conditions of fighting fraud and theft that couldn't be remedied through legal means, so they developed many private forms of regulation which allowed online exchange to flourish.

Re: When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical?

#63

Post by mikeash » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:51 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #10

Looking at the reactions of people to this topic, I come to believe there are two general approaches to life. Some people try to look at the whole game and want everyone to win, so they play by the rules. In terms of prisoner's dilemma, they choose to cooperate. Others notice that the market economy is designed around people being selfish, so they use it to justify defecting - minding only their own short-term intere…

Hidden city ticketing doesn't waste the airline's fuel. They'd burn just as much fuel if you used all segments you purchased. What wastes their fuel is stupid pricing that makes it cheaper to buy segments you don't want.

It's not generally considered unethical to, say, buy a bottle of wine just to dump it out. Why would the same thing be unethical when it's an airline ticket instead?

Re: When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical?

#64

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:52 PM UTC

asift wrote: post #56

TeMPOraL wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do those free market economists solve the problem of externalities?

How do monopolistic entities full of self-interested humans solve problems of externalities? The economics research on public choice has done a great deal for setting aside the common yet inaccurate assumption that government agents pursue the interests of society. It's not appropriate to compare real world markets to utopian governments. Both are imperfect. The real question is which is superior under realistic assu…

> Both are imperfect. The real question is which is superior under realistic assumptions.

And I'd say, why not both? It's obvious that the market is superior in many cases. It's also obvious that the government is superior in others. They both cover for each others' failures.

Re: When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical?

#65

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 5:59 PM UTC

asift wrote: post #62

tomp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulation is part of a free market, but governmental regulation is not Until someone comes, holds a gun to your face and takes your sandwich. Then you'll be thankful for government regulation. I'm absolutely certain that the government's (attempt of a) monopoly on violence is one of the most crucial aspects of free markets. Another is contract law.

There are reasonable and intelligent criticisms of market institutions. This is not one of them. Exactly what recourse would I have against someone who stole my sandwich? Unless I know the person or there is solid evidence to identify the individual, the costs of investigation and prosecution far exceed the value to be recouped. Police will take my information, file a report, and nothing else will happen. Not only is…

The difference between Paypal and real life is that Paypal works with arbitrary laws they set up, and real life works with the laws of physics. You can prevent fraud on the Internet by doing tricky filtering. You can't prevent someone from stealing a sandwich at gunpoint by rewriting how the universe works.

Enforcement is not perfect, but that the police can punish the armed sandwich thief in principle is already a deterrent. It is common knowledge who in this situation would be in the right. Compare with government-free world, where to determine who's right we'd have to make our security companies get into a firefight over it. And they'll probably decide that fighting isn't in their best interest and shoot us instead. They can always find more customers.

Re: When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical?

#66

Post by asift » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 6:05 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #64

asift wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do monopolistic entities full of self-interested humans solve problems of externalities? The economics research on public choice has done a great deal for setting aside the common yet inaccurate assumption that government agents pursue the interests of society. It's not appropriate to compare real world markets to utopian governments. Both are imperfect. The real question is which is superior under realistic assu…

> Both are imperfect. The real question is which is superior under realistic assumptions. And I'd say, why not both? It's obvious that the market is superior in many cases. It's also obvious that the government is superior in others. They both cover for each others' failures.

In a very narrow view (i.e., how the world exists at this moment) I agree that both are necessary.

Over a longer time horizon, I'm not certain how "obvious" it is governments are superior. It takes time for alternative institutions to develop, but the institutional problems that are inherent to governments are avoidable through private institutions. The presence of governmental institutions causes a lot of distortion and disincentives to create alternative forms of governance (governance that could surpass governments in terms of quality provided), so I'm not certain we should simply look at the world as it is today and conclude that governments are inherently superior.

Re: When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical?

#67

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 6:08 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #63

TeMPOraL wrote: post #10

Looking at the reactions of people to this topic, I come to believe there are two general approaches to life. Some people try to look at the whole game and want everyone to win, so they play by the rules. In terms of prisoner's dilemma, they choose to cooperate. Others notice that the market economy is designed around people being selfish, so they use it to justify defecting - minding only their own short-term intere…

Hidden city ticketing doesn't waste the airline's fuel. They'd burn just as much fuel if you used all segments you purchased. What wastes their fuel is stupid pricing that makes it cheaper to buy segments you don't want. It's not generally considered unethical to, say, buy a bottle of wine just to dump it out. Why would the same thing be unethical when it's an airline ticket instead?

> Hidden city ticketing doesn't waste the airline's fuel. They'd burn just as much fuel if you used all segments you purchased.

The same amount of fuel is being burned, but one less person is getting transported to their destination. I see a pretty clear-cut example of waste here.

> It's not generally considered unethical to, say, buy a bottle of wine just to dump it out. Why would the same thing be unethical when it's an airline ticket instead?

Not sure if it's not generally considered unethical. It's probably wine being in abundance that makes people don't mind. But imagine if you bought one of the last few bottles in the shop, and then went and dumped it on the ground. It's totally legal, but I don't think many would argue it's good conduct.

Re: When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical?

#68

Post by FireBeyond » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 6:12 PM UTC

philjohn wrote: post #57

Virgin Atlantic have a great service where, upon booking an economy ticket, you can then bid for an upgrade. The person who bids highest, wins. It's such a simple concept, but fantastic in that a higher priced seat that might have gone unsold, instead goes for what someone perceives its value to them to be.

That really is.

"Hey, I can fly JFK to Heathrow for $800. But I'd be willing to pay $1100 for business class."

You win, great. You lose, no loss.

Re: When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical?

#69

Post by mikeash » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 6:12 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #67

mikeash wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hidden city ticketing doesn't waste the airline's fuel. They'd burn just as much fuel if you used all segments you purchased. What wastes their fuel is stupid pricing that makes it cheaper to buy segments you don't want. It's not generally considered unethical to, say, buy a bottle of wine just to dump it out. Why would the same thing be unethical when it's an airline ticket instead?

> Hidden city ticketing doesn't waste the airline's fuel. They'd burn just as much fuel if you used all segments you purchased. The same amount of fuel is being burned, but one less person is getting transported to their destination. I see a pretty clear-cut example of waste here. > It's not generally considered unethical to, say, buy a bottle of wine just to dump it out. Why would the same thing be unethical when it…

If the wine were rare, the price would be high.

Here, we're talking about a product (an extra leg on an airline ticket) whose price is negative. You're being paid to take it. That pretty strongly implies the product is abundant. If it's not abundant, and the airline is still giving it a negative price, that's pretty dumb on their part, and I don't think we can be blamed for making decisions based on the (apparently wrong) information they give us.

Edit: it occurs to me that there's an excellent comparison to be had here with the electricity market, which also sometimes sees negative prices. With electricity, prices go negative when there's an overabundance of supply and it's cheaper to use up extra electricity than to shut down power plants. The electric company wants you to use that power and they don't care how. Whether it's running your refrigerator or just shooting a laser into space, it's worth it for them to pay you to use it.

A negative price means, "Please, I beg you, take this product, we have too much of it." If it's not actually beneficial to the airline for people to buy those tickets (regardless of use, which is a separate bit) then they're basically lying by way of pricing.

Re: When is a ‘travel hack’ unethical?

#70

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Nov 24, 2015, 6:14 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #67

mikeash wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hidden city ticketing doesn't waste the airline's fuel. They'd burn just as much fuel if you used all segments you purchased. What wastes their fuel is stupid pricing that makes it cheaper to buy segments you don't want. It's not generally considered unethical to, say, buy a bottle of wine just to dump it out. Why would the same thing be unethical when it's an airline ticket instead?

> Hidden city ticketing doesn't waste the airline's fuel. They'd burn just as much fuel if you used all segments you purchased. The same amount of fuel is being burned, but one less person is getting transported to their destination. I see a pretty clear-cut example of waste here. > It's not generally considered unethical to, say, buy a bottle of wine just to dump it out. Why would the same thing be unethical when it…

> But imagine if you bought one of the last few bottles in the shop, and then went and dumped it on the ground. It's totally legal, but I don't think many would argue it's good conduct.

OTOH, wine shops don't generally offer deals where it is cheaper to by two bottles of wine than one by itself, and prohibit you from reselling (or even giving away) the bottle of wine you don't want.

If they did, lots of people would probably see the seller's conduct as bad conduct, and it might make people more likely to see the buy-two-and-dump-one conduct as, if not good, at least reasonable given the circumstances created by the seller.