▲ 485 ▼ Long Island iced tea (media.piefed.world) submitted 10 months ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@piefed.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works 52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] derry@midwest.social 21 points 10 months ago (6 children) Except for the bootleggers and speakeasies, wink wink. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 1 point 10 months ago And meat pie enthusiasts. permalink fedilink source parent [–] hansolo@lemmy.today 2 points 10 months ago (4 children) Sure, but lack of access actually did reduce general consumption. The average person doesn't drink more during prohibition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] derry@midwest.social 8 points 10 months ago (1 child) Agreed. And the average person doesn't drink 4 long island ice teas at outback. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago* Right, the average person's just there for a Bloomin' Onion and a Half Rack permalink fedilink source parent [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (1 child) Lack of access only reduced consumption among those who lost access. For those who were consuming bootleg their consumption increased. Often to harder liqours for obvious reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hansolo@lemmy.today 1 point 10 months ago Yeah. That's the point. Reducing access has an effect. That's basic basic economics. So is the expectation that forbidding the sale of something so easy to make would create a robust informal market. But informal markets usually lock out casual consumers as they don't care or want to spend the time or effort to find a trustworthy contact for A bottle of wine. This isn't rocket science, this is super basic economics. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 1 point 10 months ago And meat pie enthusiasts. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 2 points 10 months ago (4 children) Sure, but lack of access actually did reduce general consumption. The average person doesn't drink more during prohibition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] derry@midwest.social 8 points 10 months ago (1 child) Agreed. And the average person doesn't drink 4 long island ice teas at outback. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago* Right, the average person's just there for a Bloomin' Onion and a Half Rack permalink fedilink source parent [–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (1 child) Lack of access only reduced consumption among those who lost access. For those who were consuming bootleg their consumption increased. Often to harder liqours for obvious reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hansolo@lemmy.today 1 point 10 months ago Yeah. That's the point. Reducing access has an effect. That's basic basic economics. So is the expectation that forbidding the sale of something so easy to make would create a robust informal market. But informal markets usually lock out casual consumers as they don't care or want to spend the time or effort to find a trustworthy contact for A bottle of wine. This isn't rocket science, this is super basic economics. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] derry@midwest.social 8 points 10 months ago (1 child) Agreed. And the average person doesn't drink 4 long island ice teas at outback. Lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago* Right, the average person's just there for a Bloomin' Onion and a Half Rack permalink fedilink source parent
[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 1 point 10 months ago* Right, the average person's just there for a Bloomin' Onion and a Half Rack permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 point 10 months ago (1 child) Lack of access only reduced consumption among those who lost access. For those who were consuming bootleg their consumption increased. Often to harder liqours for obvious reasons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] hansolo@lemmy.today 1 point 10 months ago Yeah. That's the point. Reducing access has an effect. That's basic basic economics. So is the expectation that forbidding the sale of something so easy to make would create a robust informal market. But informal markets usually lock out casual consumers as they don't care or want to spend the time or effort to find a trustworthy contact for A bottle of wine. This isn't rocket science, this is super basic economics. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 1 point 10 months ago Yeah. That's the point. Reducing access has an effect. That's basic basic economics. So is the expectation that forbidding the sale of something so easy to make would create a robust informal market. But informal markets usually lock out casual consumers as they don't care or want to spend the time or effort to find a trustworthy contact for A bottle of wine. This isn't rocket science, this is super basic economics. permalink fedilink source parent