Hacker News Reader

Comment by niwtsol | Hacker News Reader

That was a very interesting read. I've always wondered about the details around the contract between the big ski resorts and the NFS, fun to read the actual permit. Ikon and Vail seem to be a duopoly and the geographical limitations inherent of a ski resort make the free-market argument hard to believe - you can't just open up a new resort next to breck or vail and charge lower rates.

I was a long time epic/ikon pass holder - I didn't buy one last year, and I bought a smaller resort's season pass directly this year. Let it snow!

View on HN

> the geographical limitations inherent of a ski resort make the free-market argument hard to believe

That's a bit of a weird argument? It's a bit like saying that while you are inside a Walmart, they have a monopoly on selling you stuff. Yes, that's true. But surely the relevant competition for ski resorts happens before you book your vacation?

What if Vail owns all the ski resorts?

Go to the beach?

Owning a ski resort is no different than owning any other desirable property: real estate has a local monopoly. You recover that via property taxes (or land value taxes).

The beach? In winter?

The actual thing that skiiers in NA do now is fly to Europe or Japan, where Vail has not yet ruined skiing.

Summer vacations compete with winter vacations for people's money. You can do fun stuff at the beach even in winter, and the beach was just one example.

Thanks for bringing up international competition, too.

Btw, just because it's cold in one part of the world, doesn't mean it's cold in another part.

"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.

>(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.

That's a fair counter. I think I stretched my usage of "geographical limitations" to include the permitting process and thus new entrants. It would be much easier for someone to build a competitor to the hypothetical Walmart you proposed on the same street, in the same town, somewhere close. Ski resorts need the permit from NFS and they stopped giving those out, so the supply is capped by federal policy.

Yes. Though people usually plan their holiday a bit in advance and are willing to travel, sometimes even globally.

Ski resorts also compete with other non-ski holiday destinations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com