...was apparently the only thing economists talked about a month ago. Blunt Object has a run down. Not to suggest it's an unimportant debate or anything—but far less interesting than what started it.
Basically, Tyler Cowen made an obvious point about parking prices. More specifically, the ones set by government fiat: they're almost always too low and they almost invariably cause shortage. In the process, the driving public gets a fat, juicy transfer payment from the carless because they're the only ones not totally screwed by the deadweight loss. And then Arnold Kling shat a brick, arguing that shortage somehow isn't shortage in the magic land of parking; it's actually sort of hard to understand, though, because his writing's not its clearest when it's bullshit.
But really, if you're arguing parking spaces should be 100% occupied 100% of the time, you're arguing demand should outstrip supply. The minute any of those spots opens up, you're needing a driver quick to pounce. But that driver had to have been waiting there a while! You're not getting rapid 1-to-1 turnover of every single fucking spot without some sort of backlog. And how the hell do you describe that except as unsupplied demand?!
No comments:
Post a Comment