12/21/24
March 29, 2002
"Would, for example, MLB and its teams exploit the Sept. 11 attacks on our nation to improve its bottom line? Sadly, revoltingly, the answer is yes."
It's called elasticity of demand. As options dry up for consumers, prices rise, plain and simple. Additionally, there is no mention of the added costs endured by baseball teams in providing the extra security, which I'm sure is substantial. Would selling a low-cost alternative be a good thing to do? Yeah, it would be sweet and dreamy, but it's hardly right to chastise baseball about it... There are plenty of better options if you're looking to do that.
posted by 86 at 07:57 AM on March 30, 2002
I'm having trouble getting outraged about this one. At Texas Stadium and the Ballpark in Arlington, the last two pro arenas I went to regularly, the rules have always made it difficult to bring in any of your own food or drink. Also, I think the prohibition against backpacks and other bags that could carry food is a good one. It's only a matter of time before a terrorist attack on a sporting event.
posted by rcade at 09:44 AM on March 30, 2002
It's Phil Mushnick. The BSG used to say the same thing on every link to his pieces: "Phil Mushnick needs his diaper changed." It's still true. Ignore and move on. That's my best advice.
posted by yerfatma at 10:09 AM on March 30, 2002
Seems a bit of a stretch to call this war profiteering. There's no inherit right to visit a ballgame. It's not like supermarkets colluding to keep prices up but instead is looking at a market and providing the price it determines. Theres a lot of profiteering going on, but a $10 hot dog seems to be business as usual.