Yeah, it is. Recreational skiing is one of the purest of luxury goods.
There are plenty of other exclusive hobbies that can more than soak up the demand. Bird hunting is basically a straight drop in replacement (expensive travel, expensive equipment, outdoors, etc).
None of the skiers I know ski because they want to spend a lot of money, they spend a lot of money because they want to ski. (Hauling yourself up a freezing cold mountain might not sound like much fun but they quite enjoy it.) Nothing but skiing will do.
None of the hunters I know hunt because they want to spend a lot of money, they spend a lot of money because they want to hunt (birds or otherwise.) (Crouching in a tree or a swamp for hours on end might not sound like much fun but they quite enjoy it.) Nothing but hunting will do.
Hobbies are almost never drop in replacements for each other.
My point was that if skiing kills itself something else that scratches most of the same itches will become fashionable among the same demographics. I have no idea what it would actually be (if I did I would invest in it, lol).
Kind of like how the cruising industry has exploded over the past couple decades as the "traditional" US vacation spots have become unaffordable to the masses. It's not a straight drop in, but it's close enough. The same people who used to go to the Poconos, Tahoe or Cape Cod or still do, but they're not being replaced because people see the cost vs the fun you get and say fuggit. The old places continue on but they cater to a small exclusive clientele because the other potential customers are doing something else, probably at the same price point but a better value.
(Hauling yourself up a freezing cold mountain might not sound like much fun but they quite enjoy it.)
The vodka makes you warm on the inside. (joking but also not)
I guess you can argue that the monopolization of a luxury good has no victims. Who feels bad for the consumers of luxury? But the monopoly itself is the harm, and especially highlighted in this example since its private monopolization of a public resource.
I think your argument would need to be that it has no sympathetic victims.
In any case, local monopolies that come from land are a common theme, not just for ski resorts. It's literally what land ownership is--or even just a 99 year leasehold, even with no freehold 'owning'.
The usual solution is property taxes (or land value taxes) to have the taxman soak up the benefits of any monopoly.
Comments
"Don't ski" is not a solution to a ski resort monopoly.
Yeah, it is. Recreational skiing is one of the purest of luxury goods.
There are plenty of other exclusive hobbies that can more than soak up the demand. Bird hunting is basically a straight drop in replacement (expensive travel, expensive equipment, outdoors, etc).
None of the skiers I know ski because they want to spend a lot of money, they spend a lot of money because they want to ski. (Hauling yourself up a freezing cold mountain might not sound like much fun but they quite enjoy it.) Nothing but skiing will do.
None of the hunters I know hunt because they want to spend a lot of money, they spend a lot of money because they want to hunt (birds or otherwise.) (Crouching in a tree or a swamp for hours on end might not sound like much fun but they quite enjoy it.) Nothing but hunting will do.
Hobbies are almost never drop in replacements for each other.
My point was that if skiing kills itself something else that scratches most of the same itches will become fashionable among the same demographics. I have no idea what it would actually be (if I did I would invest in it, lol).
Kind of like how the cruising industry has exploded over the past couple decades as the "traditional" US vacation spots have become unaffordable to the masses. It's not a straight drop in, but it's close enough. The same people who used to go to the Poconos, Tahoe or Cape Cod or still do, but they're not being replaced because people see the cost vs the fun you get and say fuggit. The old places continue on but they cater to a small exclusive clientele because the other potential customers are doing something else, probably at the same price point but a better value.
The vodka makes you warm on the inside. (joking but also not)
I guess you can argue that the monopolization of a luxury good has no victims. Who feels bad for the consumers of luxury? But the monopoly itself is the harm, and especially highlighted in this example since its private monopolization of a public resource.
I think your argument would need to be that it has no sympathetic victims.
In any case, local monopolies that come from land are a common theme, not just for ski resorts. It's literally what land ownership is--or even just a 99 year leasehold, even with no freehold 'owning'.
The usual solution is property taxes (or land value taxes) to have the taxman soak up the benefits of any monopoly.