Longest (and Perhaps Stupidest) Post Ever

As much as I hate those local news teams with names like "Problem Solvers" or "Defenders", I think it would be a fun job. I was actually about to title this post "MNSTREAM: Problem Solvers", but I thought that title sounded a little banal. The weird thing was, I couldn't think of anything more clever/amusing/vulgar. This even after giving it almost 2 minutes of thought. So, one of the following two things is currently happening: I'm either mentally slipping (highly unlikely, especially considering I've been drinking less), or this whole blogging business is becoming more comfortable and thus increasing my apathy (bingo). Nevertheless, I woke up ridiculously early this morning and had a proverbial ass-load of time on my hands. I began to think. Hard. I started off on video games that haven't been made into movies yet but show excellent potential. That topic is always an old standby in my noggin (and probably a post in the not-too-distant-future). So one thing led to another and eventually, I began to think about some of the more utile problems that John Everyman is facing in America today, and like all superb thinkers, I came up with one solution to solve two problems.

I am one of many people who I consider "news perusers". We news perusers - and boy are we aplenty - employ a rigid regimen when seeking out our daily news items. We start where everyone else does: the front page. That probably goes without saying. Or writing. Whatever. Moving on. I prefer my news from two sources, depending on my mood that day. For me, it's The New York Times or USA Today. The NYT is for those go-getter type days, whereas USA Today is for those mornings after 5+ beers; when you wake up with those annoying quasi-hangovers but you actually have somewhere to be so you can't just sleep until noon.

Within the past month or so, I've noticed a steady increase in articles pertaining to the airlines. Specifically, articles dealing with new luggage policies. To combat the rising cost of fuel, many airlines are now charging people a fee if they're bringing a second checked piece of baggage. For whatever reason, it seems as if America is outraged by these new policies, and for the life of me I cannot understand why. Let us crack wise about some soft-core economics. I'm about to make fellow 'streamer Kevin (a self-proclaimed "econ slap-dick") very proud. The following is a very simple explanation for the new luggage fees intended for the dumb.

Quick sidebar: Just for fun, I am going to compose parts of this diatribe in the style of a professor who is close to retirement and mailing in the last couple years of her professional life while making no efforts to disguise her complete ambiguity towards the progress made by his students. Also, this professor shows nothing but utter contempt for any students she think may be falling behind the curve. (I made it a her and I'm naming her Professor Miller, after a woman I perceived to be the meanest 5th grade teacher ever conceived in the fires of Hades. She would actually mock the occasional kid in class who wasn't grasping things on the quick. Total opposite of Mr. Durnian, but that's a separate story for a separate time.)

IMPORTANT: If you are not dumb, please feel free to skip ahead to whenever. I really don't give a sh*t. I'm admittedly not super-savvy in economics (seriously, Kevin's turf), but it seems to me that the airlines are acting in a way top scientists call "normal". I feel like we learned this is high school. Jet fuel is - for all intents and purposes in the argument herein - a raw material that the airlines need to provide their service. We call this service "the flight" or if you prefer, "when they take you from one place to the other place". Brace yourselves for another self-disqualifying statement: I'm not an expert in aeronautics. Still though, I am relatively certain that the planes need some sort of jet fuel to..... uhhh.... go. So when the price of jet fuel goes up, the cost incurred by the airlines - on every flight they operate - goes up as well. In order to keep their profits steady while their cost increases, they need to increase revenues. That means they need more money to come in from the consumers (That's You, America!!! Wheee!!!). The way that companies traditionally increase revenue - assuming no growth in sales - is by increasing the price the consumer pays. I hope everyone's still with me. If you went to an SEC school (I'm not sure why but recently I've been really dogging SEC schools), don't be ashamed to re-read this paragraph. In fact, I suggest you do because we're about to apply this concept to a real-world example.

Imagine you're at your local supermarket. You're enjoying your time; you've got your skim milk, your bag of granny smiths, a pint of Chunky Monkey... good times all around. It feels good to get some food, doesn't it? While winding down, you decide that your coup de grâce on hunger will be a bag of Detroit's own Better Made© brand potato chips (sorry, SEC alumni. See if you can imagine a different brand.... Krunchers!). Let's cut to the inner monologue, "Wait... What's this?... Are these regular Better Made?... Yep... What's happening here?... Is someone playing a joke on me?... Did they bring back Candid Camera?... This must be a mistake or something... These chips are 10¢ more than I'm accustomed to paying!... The price has changed?!?... Can it be?... Just what in the hell is going on here?!?" I'll tell you what's going on, slick. The population of boll weevils has skyrocketed across the cotton-rich states of southeastern America, decimating the population of cotton plants in the region. With fewer cotton plants, less cottonseed oil is being produced. Since there's less cottonseed oil available, the price of cottonseed oil will go up. (Side note: You're going to have to just trust me here, because that's an entirely different lesson that we'll cover the next time I'm bored enough to write something this pointless again.) Since the fine folks making the chips need that cottonseed oil, and it just became a little more expensive, their unit cost for a bag of chips will increase. Like we discussed before; for the producers to keep their profits steady, they need to increase revenues, and that most likely means that the price you pay for a bag of chips will go up. Analogously: the higher-priced bag of chips is the plane ride with the luggage fee, the cottonseed oil is the fuel, the boll weevils are oil-controlling Middle Eastern King Dicks who are putting the squeeze on your boy Uncle Sam, and the rising costs of production are... well... the rising costs of production. So what I say to America is this: Stop packing every gosh damn thing you own for a week in Vegas! Their have been a couple of instances in my life when I've been fortunate enough to be abroad for weeks at a time. I can swear with a clean conscience that I have never packed more than a backpack and one checked bag (and never over the 50-pound limit) for any voyage. Never ever. So give me a break, American globetrotters. Pack one bag. If you need to recap further (I'm looking at you, South Carolina Gamecocks), remember that I hold office hours Monday and Wednesday from 1 P.M. to 3 P.M. Moving on...

Welcome back if you napped during the remedial lecture. So, what's the second problem. More importantly, what's the solution that can simultaneously solve both problems? I'm glad you asked. We're about to do what some incredibly insufferable people call - ad nauseam - "thinking outside the box". Simply put, the second problem that is hanging onto our country like a big mother-effin' albatross is obesity. You all know the gist of this issue and have probably heard a plethora of stats, so I won't waste your time (this happens rarely). Let's delve into the panacea. Where do obesity and the rapidly rising costs of air travel intersect? Noted über-thinkmaster Albert Einstein once said, "When the solution is simple, God is answering." I couldn't have said it better myself. That's actually probably why I used the quote. I may be overly cocksure in my "thinkiness", but Einstein is still The Man, as far as thinking goes.

Solution: First, rule out the practice of enacting universal hikes in ticket prices and realize this simple truth: if a plane is carrying less weight, it will get better gas mileage. Oh, wait a second folks. Let's pause as we bring in our special guest, The Obvious Warrior. The Obvious Warrior tells us, "If a plane can travel a few more miles for every gallon of gas used, that small difference will eventually accumulate into that plane using thousands of dollars less in fuel!" Thanks, Obv Warrior. It was good to see you again. I guess the next time I'll see you will be at my wedding rehearsal dinner when you'll tell me how the fun part of my life is about to end. Seeya then. ANYWAYS, the point is that universal rate hikes are unfair. Blanket fare increase have the same effect on the triathlete (who's only bringing his backpack) as they do on Ruben from American Idol (and his 49.9-pound checked bag plus the McDonald's bag full of apple pies). Here is what the airlines should do in lieu of a blanket increase in fares: calculate a person's airfare based on the total weight (bags, jewelry, on-deck dookies) they will be bringing onto the plane. Now, before we get all exasperated from mounting the counter-argument for the overweight, let's stipulate an exception. If a doctor (not a personal trainer or a dietician but an actual, real medical doctor) vouches that the passenger in question has little or no reasonable way to lose weight while staying healthy, that person will get a ticket for the price that corresponds to the average weight of their gender. I don't know what the exact fare-calculation formula would be, and far be it from me to even pretend I would know where to begin, but we've got to have math guys who could whip this up lickety-split, right? When they get on that, it'll be a whole new ballgame. Also, maybe buy some stock in Dexatrim (and/or the like) and sell your shares of Frito-Lay. As long as people want to fly, there could be a real shakedown on Wall Street.

Think of the benefits. You've undoubtedly heard the term "vicious circle", but I bet not nearly as many people have heard "virtuous cycle". That's probably because it doesn't roll off the tongue as well. It really doesn't sound as cool. Regardless, this solution sets up a virtuous cycle. People who need to fly - and happen to be overweight - will have the ultimate incentive to get trim and healthy (and stay that way): money in their pockets. Subsequently, the loads carried by our airplanes will get lighter and lighter, and the planes will gradually burn less and less ultra-costly fuel. America gets healthier, and once we observe plane loads getting lighter, the pressure will be on the airlines to lower their rates. Their "rising fuel cost" answer to everything will be negated by the popular evidence of better m.p.g. on the planes, and the rates will come down. Of course, not a single word of this will matter if we can find a better source of energy. Good talk.