[Retric]

Try and make what you did work.

  33 * .6 = 19.8
  33 * .4 = 13.2

  1 - (19.8 / 100) = 0.802
  1 - (13.2 / 100) = 0.868

  0.802 * 0.868 = 0.696136

  (1 - 0.696136) * 100 = 30.38% discount not 33%

Thus your burden of proof. Either they are utterly incompetent or lying.

[Retric]

Thinking about this some more what they said is just as wrong as saying 2 + 2 = 5, but people are apparently innumerate enough not to notice.

I’m not sure if I should applaud the blazing disregard for people’s intelligence or appreciate that it works.

[opo]

Lol. It is pretty clear that the key point of the summary I quoted was that the consensus among economists who have studied this was that at least 60% of the decline in airfare prices can be attributed to deregulation. You didn’t need to put in all this effort to misinterpret it. (No one was adding percentages or whatever you were claiming.) Them rounding to the nearest multiple of 10 is reasonable - not rounding would be implying a higher precision than is really warranted.

If anyone is reading this thread, it illustrates a problem common in on-line discussions. Someone will make a big claim that contradicts the consensus of the experts in the fields who have studied the issue. (I have found that when discussions touch upon economics, it is virtually guaranteed, but it happens in many areas.)

Someone then points out that if the person is correct and the consensus position of the experts who have studied this issue are all wrong, the burden of proof is on them. The original poster won’t try and do this but will instead try to come up with a reason that those who devote their careers to actually studying these issues can’t be trusted or are incompetent, etc. Unfortunately, at this stage, the person is usually even more entrenched in their personal pet theory. They usually aren’t so blatant as to say “Either they are utterly incompetent or lying.”, but that is where we are.

[Retric]

You’re assuming they are accurately describing results of the field. They are not and in fact the field didn’t come up with such quotable round numbers.

I can point to plenty of research that says otherwise, but when you quote someone saying 1 + 2 = 4, they don’t merit a more comprehensive rebuttal but to simply point and laugh.

The guy being quoted presumably came up with numbers from thin air which is why they both don’t make sense and don’t line up with actual research.