I’m not quite sure what the moral to this story is, if indeed it even has one.
21 thoughts on “A Failure Of The Free Market”
Be nice, please.
The “failure” is that it was not a Pareto-optimal outcome. At least one, if not both, parties were worse off than if they had come to an agreement on what it would take not to interrupt the “photo shoot”.
And, well, don’t go around trying to make private claims to public property, I suppose. Especially not if Debryshire is around. 🙂
Another moral is: “Until you have to actually type someone’s name, you might be completely mis-reading it.” To wit, I’ve been reading his name as “DERBYshire” until today.
Looks more like a failure of the social compact. In other words, Derbyshire felt like being a jerk, and was. On the other hand, whatever company the woman was working for should have planned better, perhaps by spending some money on getting permits to have part of the beach shut off, etc. — if such a thing can be done in that area. It’s possible that they aren’t actually allowed to use a state park for commercial purposes and they were the ones breaking the law. I’d say the fail is spread around pretty evenly here, but the “free market” has nothing, or very little, to do with it.
“I’ve been reading his name as “DERBYshire” until today.”
He’s changed his name! I had no idea. 😐
People mis-spell their own names once in a while, it seems. The funny thing is, there are at least 2 other articles written under that typo, and “Debryshire” has a separate “Author info” page on NRO’s website. 🙂
He does title his audio posts “Radio Derb”, fwiw.
“Be nice” is always a good rule to live by. I don’t think it extends to, “Deny yourself a pleasure which, except that we decided we wanted a private beach today, is your perfect right as a patron of this park.”
When somebody attempts to manipulate me by invoking a valid and important maxim, I tend to get shirty myself. The phrase, “You first,” comes to mind.
So, Andrea Harris thinks Debryshire is wrong. He is not, under any circumstances. We all of us have to protect the rights we have left and one of them is to walk unaccosted in parks, municipal, state or federal
If you want to use State Property set aside as a Park for commercial purposes then there are probably ways of doing it legally. That would probably involve a few cops etc. So, the film company just goes in and uses a winsome lass with a nice smile and maybe other attributes. Does not work with those of us who have raised girls – we know the lengths they will go to to get their own way.
The girl was there for a reason – she would not appear threatening to anyone. Imagine the nonsense that would have ensued if a great big burly guy had accosted a young woman on that beach for the same reason.
What bothers me is the term failure as applied to the “market”. I don’t have any external reference to apply to this to judge the goodness or badness of the outcome. One party wanted something from the other, but the cost was too high, so they both went on their way. Nobody lost any liberty, no force was used, etc.
Maybe a better way to put it is that the helicopter people’s plan failed, but it failed due to the normal (successful) operation of the free market.
One party wanted something from the other, but the cost was too high, so they both went on their way. Nobody lost any liberty, no force was used, etc.
The owners/operators/renters of the helicopter lost the opportunity to film what they had intended to film, which has a time and monetary cost.
It all depends on one’s definition of a “market failure”.
From the perspective of Pareto-optimality, it was a failure. Given that the lost time had a monetary cost that was most likely much higher than $1,000, the helicopter owner/operator would have been better off paying the requested sum of $1,000 or even $500, than spending $2,000 or more to come back at another date and time, especially if future visits would require additional time to secure permits and personnel to deal with passers-by.
From the perspective of the person who had the right to the use of the beach (Derbyshire), the market actually worked, as he was able to assert his rights without any further cost to himself.
Unless, of course, the cost of a future flight and re-shoot was less than $500, in which case it was a success of the free market. But I highly doubt it, personally.
From the perspective of Pareto-optimality, it was a failure. Given that the lost time had a monetary cost that was most likely much higher than $1,000, the helicopter owner/operator would have been better off paying the requested sum of $1,000 or even $500, than spending $2,000 or more to come back at another date and time, especially if future visits would require additional time to secure permits and personnel to deal with passers-by.
You also have to consider that Debryshire might have had dozens of money grubbing relatives that’d also suddenly need a payoff. This sort of thing is how protection rackets get started. The real solution would have been to get the administration of the state park to approve roping off an area for the crew to use.
I don’t see a failure of the free market either, since the market doesn’t require that a transaction take place even if it would be to the advantage of both parties. The free market allows people to make decisions that gio against their better interest, if that’s what they prefer.
Rather, it was a failure of agency, in that the rep to whom Derbyshire spoke didn’t have the authority to act properly in her employer’s interest.
I see a very unexpected prejudice against money-making here! What if the woman had been an usher at a wedding on the beach? My wedding was on a public beach, and I didn’t get official permission. I even asked a couple of sunbathers if they would move. I was prepared to explain why their stretch of beach would be easier on my wife’s elderly relatives (more shade, less walking), but they couldn’t have been nicer and moved without any explanation needed. I think Debryshire would have moved for me too. So, I think he just resents other people’s for-profit activities!
—
Also: I think he blew it by asking for too much. He says he would have settled for $100, and I think he should have taken more time to explain/sell the notion that $100 was a reasonable price. Had the sunbathers I asked to move asked for $100 or better yet, $50, I probably would have just given it to them, especially if they could come up with a plausible story about why I was ruining their day so I could have mine. But if they asked for $1,000, I would have figured they were crazy, and even if I felt I could afford $1,000, I wouldn’t have wanted to get in a transaction with them anyway, for fear they wouldn’t honor their side of the deal. I think Debryshire came off as too crazy to work with.
John B., I would agree that this transaction (probably) did not reach a pareto optimum. But as ak4mc says, there is no requirement that every transaction do so. The only way we could apply this anecdote to the “market” for beach filming is if this outcome occurs every time.
I concur with ak4mc. The company probably didn’t expect anybody to be passing through, and cut a few corners and some red tape by doing a lot of stuff unofficially. There’s nothing wrong with the practice; heck, civil society is based upon such non-monetary transactions, from holding a door open for somebody approaching it, to pulling onto the shoulder to let somebody pass you more easily.
So the company gambled, just as people do every day, and in this particular occurrence, lost the gamble. What did it cost them? There’s no way to really know, because it was very unclear as to exactly what they were doing. Why did they need an empty (public!) beach in the first place? Helos tend to be fairly expensive to run per hour (frankly, in this day and age, enterprising individuals could probably steal a lot of this kind of business with lightweight VTOL UAVs with stabilized HD cameras), so the company almost certainly lost money on the failure to complete the transaction… but, I suspect, far less than it would have cost them to have gone through the red tape to ensure (or perhaps, “insure”:)) that things went as planned.
Personally, I suspect that I would have granted them their request, for free; unless I seriously desire to prove a point, I tend to be fairly passive about such things, and I also gain non-monetary value from performing those non-monetary transactions I alluded to above.
That said, I don’t really fault him for his decision in this case; he did suggest that what was going on seemed a tad fishy, in some respects.
And, of course, he had the right. While I wouldn’t call his actions boorish, if they had been, they still would have been his right. For centuries, common law and civil society divvied up the control over interpersonal relations; the law imposed bright boundaries, where none should be permitted to pass, while the society itself imposed weaker, more flexible norms, for good or for ill. In recent years, there has been an active effort to crush the flexible power of society, and replace it in all aspects with the inflexible power of law. This, I fear, has led to a large degree–perhaps most–of our problems today. Increasingly, all sides are fighting over what the law says, because that has been decreed to be the only acceptable game in town.
“So, Andrea Harris thinks Debryshire is wrong.”
I didn’t say that. In fact, he was in the right, as it is a public beach and the company the woman worked for had obviously no permission to exclude part of it for their activities, or it would already have been cordoned off. I said that he was being a jerk. Not that that’s against the law — but there are reasons acting like a jerk is generally disapproved of. I mean, would it have killed him to go somewhere else for a while? But he just had to mark his territory.
Ultimately, though, the company was wrong, and they put the young woman in a bad spot. What if she had encountered, not a mild-mannered if mischievous British-American, but a gang of thugs? She was apparently all alone, and could easily have been divested of her cell phone before she could call for help.
I will second JohnB and rephrase a bit more succinctly: markets are not superior because they deliver optimal outcomes; they are superior because they are non-coercive.
He was right: it’s his perfect right to engage in a minor piece of assholery.
I do not begrudge him that right; in fact, I think it very important that that right not be infringed. But he’s still an asshole, and now that he’s publicly declared his views, perhaps some worthy entrepreneur will be able to earn a few bucks by not standing in front of his doorway (as is their right), not standing in front of his car in the parking bay, and generally not doing the myriad acts of minor assholery we are all entitled to do every day.
I do not think any the less of him; any more than I think less of the film crew who took the risk of having an asshole-free beach that day. They took a gamble, and it would usually pay off. That it didn’t that day is just one of those things they’ll have to live with, or make arrangements for.
So “John Debryshire” has only written three Corner postings to date? I think “Debryshire” is a pseudonym that another Corner writer uses when he wishes to remain anonymous, because he realizes that he is painting himself to be a bit of a jerk. Any guesses on who the real “Debryshire” might be?
On a more serious note, as a former professional production assistant myself, the PA handled this badly (at least if our anonymous writer’s account is accurate). “Please, sir, we realize that we are inconveniencing you terribly, but could you wait here a few minutes? You would be doing me a personal favor, and would be making a great contribution to the arts. “After the Zombie Apocalypse” requires a shot of the beach _without humans_.
“While you’re waiting, please help yourself to a donut from the craft service table. Can I get your name for the credits? ‘Special assistance provided by John Debryshire.’
“Have you ever wanted to be in a movie? We are casting extras for the big zombie stadium scene next Tuesday. And you’re perfect for the part. Would hardly need makeup. Er. I mean. Umm.”
There are ways to handle these things, you see. Unfortunately, PAs tend to be kids who suddenly think they’re IMPORTANT because they’ve been handed a walkie-talkie. (Not that I resembled that remark in any way when I was a PA).
I was walking down this backstreet in Greece one time where they were filming a movie. Neither end of the street was blocked off so the scene they were filming had to be restarted several times. It was supposed to be in the rain, so this poor actor had guys hosing him down (in an arc to look like rain) from off camera.
Now you tell me I could have gotten doughnuts from the PA?
I wish I understood Greek. It seemed like a funny scene even without the hoses.
Be nice, please.
The “failure” is that it was not a Pareto-optimal outcome. At least one, if not both, parties were worse off than if they had come to an agreement on what it would take not to interrupt the “photo shoot”.
And, well, don’t go around trying to make private claims to public property, I suppose. Especially not if Debryshire is around. 🙂
Another moral is: “Until you have to actually type someone’s name, you might be completely mis-reading it.” To wit, I’ve been reading his name as “DERBYshire” until today.
Looks more like a failure of the social compact. In other words, Derbyshire felt like being a jerk, and was. On the other hand, whatever company the woman was working for should have planned better, perhaps by spending some money on getting permits to have part of the beach shut off, etc. — if such a thing can be done in that area. It’s possible that they aren’t actually allowed to use a state park for commercial purposes and they were the ones breaking the law. I’d say the fail is spread around pretty evenly here, but the “free market” has nothing, or very little, to do with it.
“I’ve been reading his name as “DERBYshire” until today.”
He’s changed his name! I had no idea. 😐
People mis-spell their own names once in a while, it seems. The funny thing is, there are at least 2 other articles written under that typo, and “Debryshire” has a separate “Author info” page on NRO’s website. 🙂
He does title his audio posts “Radio Derb”, fwiw.
“Be nice” is always a good rule to live by. I don’t think it extends to, “Deny yourself a pleasure which, except that we decided we wanted a private beach today, is your perfect right as a patron of this park.”
When somebody attempts to manipulate me by invoking a valid and important maxim, I tend to get shirty myself. The phrase, “You first,” comes to mind.
So, Andrea Harris thinks Debryshire is wrong. He is not, under any circumstances. We all of us have to protect the rights we have left and one of them is to walk unaccosted in parks, municipal, state or federal
If you want to use State Property set aside as a Park for commercial purposes then there are probably ways of doing it legally. That would probably involve a few cops etc. So, the film company just goes in and uses a winsome lass with a nice smile and maybe other attributes. Does not work with those of us who have raised girls – we know the lengths they will go to to get their own way.
The girl was there for a reason – she would not appear threatening to anyone. Imagine the nonsense that would have ensued if a great big burly guy had accosted a young woman on that beach for the same reason.
What bothers me is the term failure as applied to the “market”. I don’t have any external reference to apply to this to judge the goodness or badness of the outcome. One party wanted something from the other, but the cost was too high, so they both went on their way. Nobody lost any liberty, no force was used, etc.
Maybe a better way to put it is that the helicopter people’s plan failed, but it failed due to the normal (successful) operation of the free market.
One party wanted something from the other, but the cost was too high, so they both went on their way. Nobody lost any liberty, no force was used, etc.
The owners/operators/renters of the helicopter lost the opportunity to film what they had intended to film, which has a time and monetary cost.
It all depends on one’s definition of a “market failure”.
From the perspective of Pareto-optimality, it was a failure. Given that the lost time had a monetary cost that was most likely much higher than $1,000, the helicopter owner/operator would have been better off paying the requested sum of $1,000 or even $500, than spending $2,000 or more to come back at another date and time, especially if future visits would require additional time to secure permits and personnel to deal with passers-by.
From the perspective of the person who had the right to the use of the beach (Derbyshire), the market actually worked, as he was able to assert his rights without any further cost to himself.
Unless, of course, the cost of a future flight and re-shoot was less than $500, in which case it was a success of the free market. But I highly doubt it, personally.
From the perspective of Pareto-optimality, it was a failure. Given that the lost time had a monetary cost that was most likely much higher than $1,000, the helicopter owner/operator would have been better off paying the requested sum of $1,000 or even $500, than spending $2,000 or more to come back at another date and time, especially if future visits would require additional time to secure permits and personnel to deal with passers-by.
You also have to consider that Debryshire might have had dozens of money grubbing relatives that’d also suddenly need a payoff. This sort of thing is how protection rackets get started. The real solution would have been to get the administration of the state park to approve roping off an area for the crew to use.
I don’t see a failure of the free market either, since the market doesn’t require that a transaction take place even if it would be to the advantage of both parties. The free market allows people to make decisions that gio against their better interest, if that’s what they prefer.
Rather, it was a failure of agency, in that the rep to whom Derbyshire spoke didn’t have the authority to act properly in her employer’s interest.
I see a very unexpected prejudice against money-making here! What if the woman had been an usher at a wedding on the beach? My wedding was on a public beach, and I didn’t get official permission. I even asked a couple of sunbathers if they would move. I was prepared to explain why their stretch of beach would be easier on my wife’s elderly relatives (more shade, less walking), but they couldn’t have been nicer and moved without any explanation needed. I think Debryshire would have moved for me too. So, I think he just resents other people’s for-profit activities!
—
Also: I think he blew it by asking for too much. He says he would have settled for $100, and I think he should have taken more time to explain/sell the notion that $100 was a reasonable price. Had the sunbathers I asked to move asked for $100 or better yet, $50, I probably would have just given it to them, especially if they could come up with a plausible story about why I was ruining their day so I could have mine. But if they asked for $1,000, I would have figured they were crazy, and even if I felt I could afford $1,000, I wouldn’t have wanted to get in a transaction with them anyway, for fear they wouldn’t honor their side of the deal. I think Debryshire came off as too crazy to work with.
John B., I would agree that this transaction (probably) did not reach a pareto optimum. But as ak4mc says, there is no requirement that every transaction do so. The only way we could apply this anecdote to the “market” for beach filming is if this outcome occurs every time.
I concur with ak4mc. The company probably didn’t expect anybody to be passing through, and cut a few corners and some red tape by doing a lot of stuff unofficially. There’s nothing wrong with the practice; heck, civil society is based upon such non-monetary transactions, from holding a door open for somebody approaching it, to pulling onto the shoulder to let somebody pass you more easily.
So the company gambled, just as people do every day, and in this particular occurrence, lost the gamble. What did it cost them? There’s no way to really know, because it was very unclear as to exactly what they were doing. Why did they need an empty (public!) beach in the first place? Helos tend to be fairly expensive to run per hour (frankly, in this day and age, enterprising individuals could probably steal a lot of this kind of business with lightweight VTOL UAVs with stabilized HD cameras), so the company almost certainly lost money on the failure to complete the transaction… but, I suspect, far less than it would have cost them to have gone through the red tape to ensure (or perhaps, “insure”:)) that things went as planned.
Personally, I suspect that I would have granted them their request, for free; unless I seriously desire to prove a point, I tend to be fairly passive about such things, and I also gain non-monetary value from performing those non-monetary transactions I alluded to above.
That said, I don’t really fault him for his decision in this case; he did suggest that what was going on seemed a tad fishy, in some respects.
And, of course, he had the right. While I wouldn’t call his actions boorish, if they had been, they still would have been his right. For centuries, common law and civil society divvied up the control over interpersonal relations; the law imposed bright boundaries, where none should be permitted to pass, while the society itself imposed weaker, more flexible norms, for good or for ill. In recent years, there has been an active effort to crush the flexible power of society, and replace it in all aspects with the inflexible power of law. This, I fear, has led to a large degree–perhaps most–of our problems today. Increasingly, all sides are fighting over what the law says, because that has been decreed to be the only acceptable game in town.
“So, Andrea Harris thinks Debryshire is wrong.”
I didn’t say that. In fact, he was in the right, as it is a public beach and the company the woman worked for had obviously no permission to exclude part of it for their activities, or it would already have been cordoned off. I said that he was being a jerk. Not that that’s against the law — but there are reasons acting like a jerk is generally disapproved of. I mean, would it have killed him to go somewhere else for a while? But he just had to mark his territory.
Ultimately, though, the company was wrong, and they put the young woman in a bad spot. What if she had encountered, not a mild-mannered if mischievous British-American, but a gang of thugs? She was apparently all alone, and could easily have been divested of her cell phone before she could call for help.
I will second JohnB and rephrase a bit more succinctly: markets are not superior because they deliver optimal outcomes; they are superior because they are non-coercive.
Funny follow-up by derb at the Corner this morning.
He was right: it’s his perfect right to engage in a minor piece of assholery.
I do not begrudge him that right; in fact, I think it very important that that right not be infringed. But he’s still an asshole, and now that he’s publicly declared his views, perhaps some worthy entrepreneur will be able to earn a few bucks by not standing in front of his doorway (as is their right), not standing in front of his car in the parking bay, and generally not doing the myriad acts of minor assholery we are all entitled to do every day.
I do not think any the less of him; any more than I think less of the film crew who took the risk of having an asshole-free beach that day. They took a gamble, and it would usually pay off. That it didn’t that day is just one of those things they’ll have to live with, or make arrangements for.
So “John Debryshire” has only written three Corner postings to date? I think “Debryshire” is a pseudonym that another Corner writer uses when he wishes to remain anonymous, because he realizes that he is painting himself to be a bit of a jerk. Any guesses on who the real “Debryshire” might be?
On a more serious note, as a former professional production assistant myself, the PA handled this badly (at least if our anonymous writer’s account is accurate). “Please, sir, we realize that we are inconveniencing you terribly, but could you wait here a few minutes? You would be doing me a personal favor, and would be making a great contribution to the arts. “After the Zombie Apocalypse” requires a shot of the beach _without humans_.
“While you’re waiting, please help yourself to a donut from the craft service table. Can I get your name for the credits? ‘Special assistance provided by John Debryshire.’
“Have you ever wanted to be in a movie? We are casting extras for the big zombie stadium scene next Tuesday. And you’re perfect for the part. Would hardly need makeup. Er. I mean. Umm.”
There are ways to handle these things, you see. Unfortunately, PAs tend to be kids who suddenly think they’re IMPORTANT because they’ve been handed a walkie-talkie. (Not that I resembled that remark in any way when I was a PA).
I was walking down this backstreet in Greece one time where they were filming a movie. Neither end of the street was blocked off so the scene they were filming had to be restarted several times. It was supposed to be in the rain, so this poor actor had guys hosing him down (in an arc to look like rain) from off camera.
Now you tell me I could have gotten doughnuts from the PA?
I wish I understood Greek. It seemed like a funny scene even without the hoses.