Jerrod Ankenman (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} hgfalling) wrote,@ 2007-12-01 15:26:00 |
|
smoking
(inspired by comments in a blog post at the Volokh Conspiracy.
One widely accepted idea in economics is that a free market is extremely efficient at matching supply and demand, using the price mechanism. As far as I know, this is even accepted by anti-free market economists, who simply believe that other negative factors surrounding a broadly-based free market economy outweigh this efficiency. I could be wrong about this, however -- if you have examples, I'm interested to hear.
Libertarian-minded people (I am one) extend this idea to other areas of economic activity as well. We talk about marketplaces of ideas, markets for health care, markets for mostly anything that can be provided by private producers and not the government. Now some of us argue this position from principle -- that is, that the role of government ought to simply be limited -- and some from our belief that this will result in better outcomes, due to the increased efficiency of the market at satisfying consumer demands.
In most cases, the free market really does do a better job of satisfying consumer demand. But there are some exceptions. For example, consider the bans on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc. that began (I think) in California in the midtolate 1990s. These were government action promulgated as working condition relief to workers (such as waitresses) in these environments. Before these government-issued bans on smoking, you would be hard pressed to find a bar anywhere that did not allow smoking. At the time, I was selfishly happy (as a non-smoker), but felt on principle that this intervention was likely overstepping the limits of government.
Ten years later, bans of this type have been enacted around the country. Smokers have adapted, and my anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that both smokers and non-smokers alike are broadly happy with the resultant atmospheres in bars, restaurants, etc, and if all non-smoking bans were dissolved today, a majority but not all of these establishments would remain non-smoking, while the remainder would return to allowing smoking.
The question I pose is: if free markets are so responsive to consumer needs, why was there no apparent move by bar/restaurant owners to move toward entirely non-smoking venues if it seems so clear in retrospect that there was a strong desire on the part of a majority of people to have non-smoking establishments?
(inspired by comments in a blog post at the Volokh Conspiracy.
One widely accepted idea in economics is that a free market is extremely efficient at matching supply and demand, using the price mechanism. As far as I know, this is even accepted by anti-free market economists, who simply believe that other negative factors surrounding a broadly-based free market economy outweigh this efficiency. I could be wrong about this, however -- if you have examples, I'm interested to hear.
Libertarian-minded people (I am one) extend this idea to other areas of economic activity as well. We talk about marketplaces of ideas, markets for health care, markets for mostly anything that can be provided by private producers and not the government. Now some of us argue this position from principle -- that is, that the role of government ought to simply be limited -- and some from our belief that this will result in better outcomes, due to the increased efficiency of the market at satisfying consumer demands.
In most cases, the free market really does do a better job of satisfying consumer demand. But there are some exceptions. For example, consider the bans on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc. that began (I think) in California in the midtolate 1990s. These were government action promulgated as working condition relief to workers (such as waitresses) in these environments. Before these government-issued bans on smoking, you would be hard pressed to find a bar anywhere that did not allow smoking. At the time, I was selfishly happy (as a non-smoker), but felt on principle that this intervention was likely overstepping the limits of government.
Ten years later, bans of this type have been enacted around the country. Smokers have adapted, and my anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that both smokers and non-smokers alike are broadly happy with the resultant atmospheres in bars, restaurants, etc, and if all non-smoking bans were dissolved today, a majority but not all of these establishments would remain non-smoking, while the remainder would return to allowing smoking.
The question I pose is: if free markets are so responsive to consumer needs, why was there no apparent move by bar/restaurant owners to move toward entirely non-smoking venues if it seems so clear in retrospect that there was a strong desire on the part of a majority of people to have non-smoking establishments?
