London Banter - View Single Post

JNugent · October 15th 03, 10:51 PM posted to uk.transport.london,uk.transport

wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

[ ... ]

[ standard class - not even first class - return rail fare from
Manchester to London at £175]

Soince no-one sensible would even think of paying that much - per
person - for such a journey, so what?

The trains that cost that much are pretty much full.
Every one of them not sensible?

Or every one of them not paying.

Some of them must be paying.
Those who are not can fully justify it to the accounts department.

You'd have to have no sense of values to all to pay £175 for such a
journey. It's cheaper on the BA Shuttle.

But from your own economic perspective it _must_ be better to take
the train than fly. People do it.

*I* don't do it - I could not justify such profligacy out of my limited
travel budget, which has to be much better-managed than that.

And especially not for a whole family (£700?).

But none of this is novel - it has been argued over many times here.

You could even take a taxi...

It would be a horrendous journey.

About the same as the car, but less stressful because you wouldn't be
driving - but don't let's get hung up on it - it *was* only a suggestion to
show how ridiculous a rail fare of £175 for such a journey really is. I
wouldn't suggest a taxi for that sort of journey (at least, not for just one
passenger, except ias a distress purchase).

Its perhaps a problem with the free market that people do not
always behave in a sensible way

snip Irrational and ad-homineum abuse

The so-called "Irrational and ad-homineum abuse" was no more than an
straightforward analysis and characterisation of what you had
written.

...and I am going to re-type it here (well, cut'n'paste

"Spoken like a true pimply-faced 15-yr-old who thinks he's the life and soul
of the party in the back row of the first lesson of the Economics GCSE
course."

No, you relate disagreeing with a theory as smart-arse-spotty kidism.
Irrational and ad-homineum stereotyping of a position you disagree
with.

Disagreeing with a theory with some academic justification is one thing
(though there is effectively no soundly-based counter to the Theory of
Rational Decision-Making). The response: "But sir, people don't behave
rationally; just look at the way they..." is *all* Year 11 stuff. Economics
teachers *know* it's coming and are ready for it. Just ask one.

It's just one theory, and its flawed.

So you say. But if you say that with sincerity, it can only be because you
have made the (classic) mistake of assuming that it says something that it
doesn't say.

Here it is in a nutshell: "An economic actor will seek to maximise his
utility by making a rational decision in his own interest".

As a theory, it is pretty well unassailable (it has never been falsified or
superseded).

Note that "his own interest" is what *he* thinks it is, not what a third
party thinks it is. In the transport field, that is a pretty crucial
distinction (though it is often not made by the "Please sir, people aren't
rational" back-row-bunch).

Anyone who has studied (or taught) Economics will immediately have
recognised your syndrome - if not from their own reaction, then
certainly from the reaction of class-mates. It's as well-known as
the class wag telling the teacher that "respect has to be earned,
Miss".

[You are such a master of all things that we must not question your
views? dick ]

Ask an Economics teacher? There are plenty of them.

So, this theory, is the only theory and its cast in stone is it?

As far as the theoretical underpinning of micreconomic actions (and
therefore of macroeconomic actions), yes, it is.

It has never been falsified.

This is fact, not opinion.

Even Marx depended upon it (whether he knoew it or not - but he probably
did).

Are you saying that no-one ever makes bad decisions and this never
ever arses up the economy.

Whether a decision is "bad" or not is a value judgment. What may look bad
(or even selfish) to a bystander will not necessarily do so to the person
who had the decision to make. "Irrational" does not mean "bad", and
vice-versa.

There are many examples of this happening. Its happening right now.
What you seem to be saying, is that because I question a theory I am a
spotty smartarse.

Not at all.

Effectively, I said you did it *like* a spotty smartarse" (to borrow your
phrase).

As I have often said, you seem to be some grey suited "norm" sheep
that does not want to think for yourself, and just want to swallow a
flawed theory that suits your dodgy political thoughts.

If you imagine for one moment that there is any serious counter-philosophy
to the Theory of Rational Decision-Making, you would do well to think again.

All you are doing is defining (ad-hoc) any decision you don't like or don't
agree with as "irrational".

That is neither a scientific nor an academic approach.

I don't disagree with the bits I wrote, and I don't even disagree
with all the bits that others wrote. John Buckley was right, for one.

The 175 pounds is fully justifyable as "you can't buck the market".

If you think £175 for a one-person fare from Manchester to London
(even if it is a return) is "justifiable", then please feel free to
pay it.

I'm not paying it, but its obviously justifyable, as people do.

For *some* (small minority of) people, it may be - I heard today that Andrew
Lloyd-Webber habitually - every week - booked two seats from London to New
York on Concorde (at a cost of £6000 per seat), just so he would have an
empty seat to put his newspaper on. If that's what he wanted to do - and if
the (tiny amount of) extra space was worth £6000 to him (let alone the £6000
he paid for his own fare), then that was rational for him. Whether you or I
could rationally do the same thing (even once in a lifetime) is a quite
separate point, and the answer in either case says nothing about AL-W's
rationality.

But we are posting in a general transport newsgroup - not a forum where the
transport needs of multi-millionaires are the foremost topic. For ordinary
travellers, on ordinary incomes, paying for their own transport (as opposed
to having it paid by a company), never mind Concorde - £175 from Manchester
to London is not justifiable (unless there something intrinsically desirable
about the mode itself, as there might be for a trainspotter, which might
make it a rational decision, or in a case of exceptional urgency where the
journey becomes a distress purchase, a bit like people paying a £50
taxi-fare at dead of night).