Economists? What Economists?
By Walter Moore, Chief Economist and Legal Analyst, L.A. Policy Institute.An article in the L.A. Times attributes a decline in international traffic at LAX to a supposed failure to "modernize" the facility. The source of this information? Un-named economists, plus our old friend, the ubiquitous faux economist Jack Keyser, who has no degree in economics, but a great job with an outfit that really puts the "profit" in "non-profit."
Eager to learn the names of any economists who believe that international air travel is a function of airport "modernization," I therefore sent the following letter to the reporter who wrote the article, and I will share those economists' names with you if and when she shares them with me. Unless and until that happens, however, I, for one, will assume that these "economists" are, like Keyser, not economists at all, but are instead merely advocates for another public works boondoggle who hope to gain unwarranted credibility by labelling themselves as economists.
* * *
Dear Ms. Oldham:
In your story, you say, "Economists blame the shift on LAX's cramped and outdated terminals and lawmakers' inability to agree on a plan to modernize the airport while other cities have built gleaming new concourses."
Could I trouble you for the names of those economists?
I notice your article referred to one, and only one, person as an economist, namely, Jack Keyser. As his biography shows, however, he has no degree in economics.
Thanks in advance.
Cordially,
Walter Moore
Posted by Walter Moore @ 2/22/2007 10:36:00 PM
12 Comments:
>>cities have built gleaming new concourses."
Can any of those 'economists" name any cities south of San Jose that have built "gleaming new concourses" that are filling the void?
Ventura? no, Palmdale? no, Ontario? maybe but they aren't seeing any increases in traffic, Burbank? no, Long Beach? no, Orange County? a big NO, San Diego? no... ummm where do we go from there, Acapulco?
12:49pm,
Gonna keep a copy of your post handy, for public comment, as needed. West-siiiiiiiiiiiiied!
Absolutely. Great stuff Westside.
Westsider --
GREAT analysis. Thank you.
Let me add one more reason to the lis for decline travel to L.A.: the city has become a cesspool, and is hostile to business.
Fewer businesses here means fewer business trips.
More traffic, congestion, and third-worldliness means less appeal to tourists, who can instead visit beautiful San Francisco or the various geographic wonders around America.
You've got to admit that the arrival area for international flights is in grave need of a complete makeover. No matter where I've flown in from, arriving back to that craphole is depressing.
The "settlement" was nothing to be proud of. First of all, the $11.5 billion LAX plan was a major boondoggle -- you spend more than K-Mart spent for Sears, and wind up with three FEWER gates.
Second, the "settlement" did not require LAWA to refrain from doing anything. All its doing is "reconsidering," after which, it can come right back and proceed with the same BS plan.
Third, the "settlement" was a taxpayer ripoff, because it called for something like $250 million to go to groups like the Nation of Islam, which has nothing to do with anything.
Let's not confuse "modernization" with "make-work public works ripoff fiasco."
Thank YOU, Archie.
The reporter did write back to me, but provided zero names. I must therefore conclude that NO economists claim that international air traffic depends on who has the flashiest terminals.
I mean, come on! Carriers fly wherever people want to go. Now, more than ever, there is less reason than ever for anyone to fly to L.A. Businesses have fled in droves. Illegal aliens have flooded into the city, making it crowded and unpleasant. Why in the world would anyone want to fly here?
And to the extent that LAX was simply a good place to stop to refuel, well, advances in technology no longer force the unwilling to land here en route to somewhere better.
The good news is: this makes it more clear than ever that we do NOT need to expand the airport. With air travel down, and headed further down, we have no reason to spend money to facilitate MORE passengers. I have nothing against a new coat of paint, some new carpeting, and more TSA employees, but don't tell me we suddenly need to spend $11.5 billion in order to accomodate FEWER passengers!
P.S. The settlement I mentioned was the one filed with and approved by the Court. I downloaded it long ago, and read it. There was no bravery involved by Villaraigosa & Co. It was another case of "screw the taxpayer."
M. Moore,
I never knew an Economics degree was a prerequisite to be an economist.
Sure, it probably helps. But does the definition for "Economist" on ANY dictionary specify that a higher education degree is needed to fulfill this role?
Thanks in advance.
Cordialement,
Blogger Anonyme
We're going to have to agree to disagree on the "screw the taxpayer" angle.
There is no free lunch. The money for the airport boondoggle comes from people and businesses that use the airport, and is not something they are free to pay or not pay. You either pay, or you take the bus or use another airport.
The tax is not a direct one, but it is a tax just the same, insofar as it is not a voluntary expenditure by parties dealing at arm's lengthy, but is instead a mandatory fee imposed by a government monopoly. Or something.
I meant "arm's length," not "arm's lengthy," though the latter phrase is already growing on me.
"Fifteen dollars for a widget? That doesn't sound very arm's-lengthy to me!"
To 11:29:
No, of course not! We should no more expect someone calling himself an "economist" to have a economics degree than we should expect a physician to have a medical degree.
As you point out, training is absolutely irrelevant to whether one is qualified as an economist. The same goes for the complete absence of any publications in a peer review journal.
This is America. What matters here is not how others (e.g., accredited universities) view you, but rather, how you view yourself. If you say you're an economist, biologist, physicist, architect, professor, mechanic or engineer, then how dare anyone say otherwise?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home