The important part of that link was not during prohibition, which is irrelevant, because regardless of demand the number of people with access to alcohol was lower, but rather that after prohibition, usage rates did not surpass pre-prohibition levels.
When supply does not meet demand, prices rise
This is not an inverse relationship between supply and demand. The supply is not affecting the demand, which is what “inverse relationship” requires.
Supply and demand do not have an inverse relationship. Demand exists, and when supply exceeds demand, prices fall. When supply does not meet demand, prices rise. You understand they are related but forgot the actual curve on the graph. Supply and demand can both be low, for instance, as is the case with mega yachts. Supply and demand have no direct effect on one another, though low supply does tend to encourage firms to increase supply to try to compete and meet the demand.
Data during prohibition is irrelevant to this specific discussion, because your claim is that demand goes up when goods are prohibited, which is false, as I showed with my link
I don’t believe you have actually taken Econ 101, given the things Ive seen you say here.
Targeting something based on race and minority status is not necessarily racism. That’s kind of a bizarre jump.
The groups being targeted with the ban are, coincidentally, the groups for whom smoking rates are highest.
If you want to have the biggest impact, it makes sense to target the groups that are A) the majority of smokers and B) those least well-protected against starting smoking by current initiatives.
FWIW I’m against this ban on pure “people should be allowed to do what they want” grounds, but your specific angle of attack seems ill-informed.
Prohibition has no net effect on demand, it simply enables black markets. Alcohol use after Prohibition was not higher than pre-prohibition, but did rise to the same levels fairly quickly.
This is effectively a Pigouvian tax, and will absolutely keep some people from smoking.
Also higher prices do not necessarily mean the industry is making more money. Far more likely, given the saturation of competition, that they simply cost more to make.
Yes. My dad’s friends were also my uncles (and I have 8 actual uncles so it’s not like we were short on uncles), and I am an uncle to all my close friends’ kids
Solving problems that don’t exist, the American Way.
DuckDuckGo only achieved any meaningful userbase because of QAnon conspiracy theorists and I find it hilarious that anyone would recommend that jank-ass search.
You know what place doesn’t? A place where your landlord requests your salary documentation.
If that doesn’t happen where you live, then this warning is meaningless to you. If it does, it’s an appropriate thing to warn people about given the enthusiasm surrounding this post.
If you want to spend time in your house alone, and you’re living in NYC, yes you are very much making a stupid choice.
You could move outside of NYC, pay half as much in rent or less, and be a shut-in all you want while still commuting in for whatever reason you had to ever go to NYC as a shut-in in the first place.