I just finished reading John Lott's marvelous and entertaining book Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't. It is very well-written and it really reminds you of what an extraordinarily creative and interesting thinker Lott is. Much of the book is a translation of his many papers in different areas into prose and concepts accessible to general readers.
Peter Boettke, in the GMU Economics Department, is fond of observing that there are two places where you can find economics problems--by looking at the blackboard (theory) or looking out the window (the real world). What makes Lott such an interesting thinker to me is that he has a great knack for looking out the window for interesting problems and then coming up with original ways of thinking about them.
When I teach law & economics, one of the key puzzles I start with is Akerlof's "lemons theory." But the real question about the lemons theory, it seems to me, is why if it seems so theoretically sound, why don't we actually see it more often in the real world? The answer, of course, is that there are a host of institutions that arise to address the lemons problem so that people can actually engage in trade, most obviously contract law, but other institutions such as reputations, repeat dealing, etc. Gordon Tullock similarly posed the question long ago about why there is so much stability in legislatures when theory seems to predict a much higher rate of cycling than is actually observed.
Lott's book strikes a similar balance with Freakonomics. Now let me emphasize that I really enjoyed Freakonomics and thought it a very interesting and provocative book. Lott picks up on the point, however, that Freakonomics sometimes only seems to tell part of the story--in the same way that it would be a mistake to simply read Akerlof and assume that was the end of the story. Lott shows how formal and informal institutions arise that discipline much of the cheating and inefficiencies of the market that might otherwise prevail. He also does a very good job of providing an argument for why it is that certain market practices that may seem irrational (such as price mark-ups on liquor in restaurants) may actually have a sound economic logic to them. Even if one isn't persuaded on some of these points, the arguments are logical and fun to read.
Probably the most interesting chapter to VC readers would be his central chapter on the law & economics of crime. This is one of the best overviews and literature reviews that I have read on the topic, both as to how to think about an economic analysis of crime as well as empirical work on the subject. His primary focus in the dramatic decline in crime rates in the 1990s and discusses the various theories that have been advanced to explain it. This chapter seemed to me to be extremely strong and touched on a lot of key issues--guns, capital punishment, etc. He also summarizes his critiques of Donahue and Levitt's argument that legalized abortion generated a drop in the crime rate. The debate on this issue continues. It struck me more generally that for criminal law professors who wanted to introduce their students to the economic analysis of criminal law, Lott's chapter provides an accessible and wide-ranging discussion of the issue that potentially would be a great teaching tool.
Overall, I thought this was a really fun and interesting book, one of those ones that has you saying every page or two "Hmm, I didn't know that" or "I never thought of it that way." For those who like this general genre of economic puzzle-solving (which I do), I highly recommend it.
This economist was out an inner city job placement center, observing how the new welfare reforms were working. He saw all these people dressed up for job interviews, polishing their resumes, and being placed with jobs. He was impressed with several single mothers who told them how the program had turned their lives around.
Beaming, the center's director said to the economist "you see how well this works in practice?". The economist replied "yes, but does it work in theory?".
The evidence is pretty clear that some aspects of securities regulation are the key to reducing lemons in the stock market
I personally like the thread policing. So many posters try to hijack threads.
(Comment was referencing John Lott's lack of credibility combined with his combatitive arguments and his creative ability to manipulate numbers to come to a predetermined outcome making any claims his book has - particularly given such an overreaching, debated-to-death topic, makes it highly unlikely the book will have any useful value beyond giving fellow travelers a pat on the back).
Hardly. The advantage (disadvantage to some) of written scholarship is that the work, as my Grandfather used to say "stands on its own bottom." It doesn't matter if the author is a jerk, a fine fellow, or a hermit.
In Lott's case (or Donahue's), either the data [which Lott will provide to any other scholar and probably to anyone at all] and/or the analysis [which you can read for yourself] is valid or it's not. Skin color, nose picking, and 5-year old embarrassing moments notwithstanding.
The ad hominem attacks continue because there are no sound attacks on his work and conclusions. They have been reduced to empty bad-mouthing.
That was my first thought, too, but then I realized he means the whole field of economics is half-baked. So nice to see an economist acknowledge this for a change.
*ducks*
that's all well and good if people had unlimited time on earth to read and deconstruct everything. But if I read the book, and then analyze the data, and put it through a more basic regression and come up with different results, and/or collect more rationally-linked data and come up with different conclusions, will anyone compensate me for my time?
Please.
Not unless your work adds some value to the criticism's of Donahue and Levitt (both of which Lott cites).
An ad hominem attack is still ad hominem even if the author IS a nose-picker.
I'm surprised you're a prof. Your argument makes sense in Logic 101, but when dealing with fact-intensive subjects and highly complex arguments, the Kantian idea that a work can stand on its own for the commons to read seems odd.
Not to mention the dire logical fallacy in your argument - that because Lott cites Levitt and Donohuse, Levitt and Donohue is responsive to Lott's later-in-time piece (nevermind if the relatively-pro-market Levitt and Donohue are even the most relevant response to the titled argument).
I was considering perusing the books crim law section. After the comment censoring, I probably won't.
33year -- Are you Lott/Roush?
Judging by the amount of people interested in condemning him, if you do all that, and publish your own novel as a response? They almost certainly _will_ compensate you for your time.
So, what are you waiting for?
No problem as long as the elitists are still out in great numbers.
P. S. No, I'm not a sock puppet. Are you related to the Australian Lott hater?
But that survey was tangential to Lott's main findings, which were about crime rates and gun ownership, not DGUs.
God gave me my face, but he let me pick my nose.
On topic: What free market? You mean our hybrid market?
Off topic: Before this I had heard of Trent Lott and Ronnie Lott, but never John Lott. Now that I've learned about him, I get this funny feeling when I re-read the intro to this topic:
"I just finished reading John Lott's marvelous and entertaining book ... very well-written and it really reminds you of what an extraordinarily creative and interesting thinker Lott is ..."
This passage got my attention:
He also does a very good job of providing an argument for why it is that certain market practices that may seem irrational (such as price mark-ups on liquor in restaurants) may actually have a sound economic logic to them
It reminded me of something that puzzled me. Everyone knows how expensive the popcorn, candy etc. is in a movie theater. The common explanation I've heard for this is that theaters don't make much from the movies themselves, so they have to make up the difference via the concessions.
But wait a minute, thinks myself. The Raisinets and Jujubees should work along the same economic principles as everything else. That is, presumably there should be a price at which the theater will maximize revenue from concessions, regardless of the price or cost of the movies. If they charge over that price, they lose revenue, because people (like me) simply stop buying.
To put it another way, it can't be the case that the Theater makes more money simply by marking up the price of popcorn. If it were the case, then why stop at $5? Why not $50? Or $500?
Anyone have any insight on this?
- Alaska Jack
- AJ
Elliot Reed
I think you have John Lott confused with someone else who wrote a book about guns.
They make less profit on movies, presumably, because that is a competitive market.
Alaska Jack, it's because they have a functional monopoly on in theatre sales. They mark up the price to the monopolist's price rather than the price constrained by competition.
They make less profit on movies, presumably, because that is a competitive market.
——-
It's more complicated than that. Steven Landsburg has written about this. Try:
page 48 at:
Professional Guide to Value Pricing
You CAN find Landsburg's argument in his book, The Armchair Economist. It doesn't completely answer the question about popcorn prices, but it does explain very nicely why standard answers like Alaska Jack's are not correct.
Basically, Lott published a model, applied to a data set that he had, which implied that more guns meant less crime. Then some errors were discovered in the data set, and applying Lott's model to the corrected data set showed no relationship between guns and crime. So Lott came out with a new model, which, when applied to the corrected data set, again showed that more guns meant less crime. And when he did this, he tried to hide the fact that he had switched models.
This incident provides fairly strong evidence that one of the criteria that Lott uses, when he's building a model, is that it must give the results that he wants to get. In other words, you can't trust his research, because his methods are designed to get the results that he wants, not to find out what relationships are actually present in the data.
The short answer is: price discrimination.
Well, I guess I was kind of hoping someone could just tell me.
As for Frankcross's comment, that certainly would appear to be the obvious reason. It just didn't sit right with me, though, because of two things. First, concessions are a non-essential. You always have the alternative of saying "no." (Or, more accurately, something along the lines of "$8 for a tub of popcorn? You have got to be *$#@!ing me!"). Second, you usually have the alternative of popping into the local Kwik-E-Mart and buying your own candy. Not that I would ever dream of doing this.
The few explanations I could think of didn't seem satisfying.
1. Theater chains have so thoroughly brainwashed moviegoers that their concessions are better, that the customers gladly pay the inflated prices. Possible, I guess, if you believe in the false consciousness of the bourgeoisie and whatnot.
2. Moviegoers MUST HAVE popcorn, which isn't easily smuggled in. But then why the markup on Raisinets?
3. Customers feel charitable toward the struggling movie industry, and want to help out their local mom-and-pop megaplex. Seems unlikely.
4. Moviegoers are too lazy to stop into the convenience stores on their way to the multiplex. Some of them, sure, but all (or even most) of them? That's why it's called a CONVENIENCE store. Are you telling me they don't even have any Oreos or Hershey's Kisses in the cupboard above the refridgerator* at home?
5. Many moviegoers are single and male, and don't have a female counterpart (or suitable metrosexual male acquaintance) with a purse suitable for smuggling. Why can't they just wear a jacket like I
dowould if I were into that kind of thing?And so on.
- Alaska Jack
* wink
That looks suspiciously like mind-reading. If that's the strong part of the evidence against him then in essence there is no evidence against him. Innocent victims of left-wing attacks typically are much more viciously attacked. For example Chagnon supposedly committed genocide. So if this is the best that Lott's critics can come up with, Lott must be some sort of paragon.
x - I'm perfectly aware of the Bellesiles fraud. That doesn't excuse (admittedly less serious) fraud by Lott.
The logic applies more cleanly with student discounts, but it still works with the concessions. Basically, people who have extra utility left over after buying their movie ticket will apply some of it towards their popcorn purchase. They don't analyze the popcorn purchase as a completely separate transaction, but rather lump it in with the whole movie package.
I'll make an attempt at a trashy description of what the theaters are up to.
Popcorn and soda have become what is known as a "complementary good" to the movie, or the experience of watching the movie. This is similar to other complementary relationships - burger and fries, coffee and doughnuts, peanut butter and jelly, beer and watching sports, beer and hot wings, wine and cheese, etc. Some of the "Got milk?" ads highlighted this relationship by featuring ads with products that are complementary goods to milk - like chocolate cake. So while it is quite possible to watch a movie without popcorn and a soda, many people have so closely associated them with the experience of watching a movie that the experience seems incomplete without them. Because they have a somewhat "captive market" of moviegoers, they can charge pretty dearly to complete the experience. Just enough so that you won't start comparing concession prices and going to another theater. (Not like there's much difference in pricing concessions, I wonder if there is fixing going on.)
As far as candy goes I think they just charge as much as the customer will bear there as well. Usually someone in a couple or group is getting popcorn and/or a soda, which are harder to smuggle in, so they just increase candy prices as well hoping that people won't bother to smuggle candy in either.
Depending on what side of the gun rights divide you fall on, Lott's CCW analysis is either appealing or appalling. Those appalled by his conclusions will naturally try to find fault with them. Start by reading Prof. Friedman's observations; although staunchly libertarian he does not appear to have a dog in this fight. I do not know Ayers or Plassman's ideological bias, if any, but Lott's original critics were strongly in the gun control camp: e.g. Teret works at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which is funded by the pro-gun control Joyce Foundation. Out of a natural cynicism, I suspect that any Hopkins research that produced a result like "more guns, less crime" would result in the drying up of Joyce funds.
Some of Prof. Friedman's links are dead, but the Ayers papers, at least, are googleable.
This illustrates a problem when advocates do research, the most extreme case being Bellesiles. Another recent example is Nadia Abu Al-Haj's applying for tenure and her archaeological work -- depending on your POV she is either appealing or appalling as well. Having her work evaluated by someone completely detached makes a lot of sense. In his own career, John Lott has had a series of short-time academic jobs, and I'd guess he's way too controversial to get a tenured academic job at this point.
The book relies on published academic articles that I have had. I have always and regularly made my data available to others when they have asked for it, which is not something that is regularly done by my critics.
As to the source that Dennis Todd points to, you might want to be aware the accuracy rate on his claims is nonexistent and that he has been accused by others of doctoring information. As to the survey that is discussed here, an extensive discussion of the evidence is provided here. I redid the survey in 2002 and that data has long been made available here.
I am sorry he got into that internet board mess, I think it cost him a lot of cred.
Assuming the above poster really is Mr. Lott, your gun book really helped me at the Michigan Law School. The debate was in full swing then over what became the state's 'shall issue' law. Most of the arguments against at the school were nicely addressed by you.
The captive market concept does NOT explain the pricing of popcorn. As the reference I noted above comments, theaters have captive markets in restrooms to, but you don't see pay toilets in every movie house. The question is not simply why the popcorn is priced "high" ("to maximize income") but why it's done that way and not other ways (like higher ticket prices and free popcorn). Landsburg himself provides a nice discussion (reference above) but later (see Slate.com article on internet access in hotels) points out that the same explanation doesn't work for Internet access (why do some hotels charge significantly for internet access while other hotels provide it "free"?), though the economic situation appears amazingly similar.
The "captive audience" concept was only part of my explanation. The main part was that concessions - mainly popcorn and soda - have become complementary goods to the movie watching experience. This isn't very different from other relationships that involve complementary or mutually necessary goods - like giving away or selling razors cheap but charging dearly for the blades, giving away cell phones but charging for airtime, etc. The relatively "low" ticket prices are the "hook" for the higher concession prices. As to why this is the way it is done, it could have just started that way and become a business practice - advertise "reasonable" ticket prices to get the audience in and then hit them with high concession prices. From what I have seen ticket prices are posted externally at the ticket window but concession prices are not.
Can't offer the good economic explanations as some on here will do (and thanks, not my area but I find it interesting). But I can offer an explanation why folks down there in the Lower '48 don't wear their parkas into the movie theater. They tend not to be that conspicuous in AK (even in the summers, you know, those tourists who don't understand that 47 and rainy counts as summer). In contrast, in Miami, they are almost always conspicuous. There's obviously places, Chicago, Minneapolis, etc., where they are seasonally conspicuous.
3:1? 1:3?
I've noticed that when the price of concessions is too high, as at the ball game, people will start to tailgate -- a $1 beer outside is so much more appealing than an $8 beer inside. Saving money this way is not limited to the ball game: The younger people I know pregame by starting to get their drink on cheaply at home, buying only one or two high-priced drinks at the club. Perhaps movie fans will start tailgating in the theater parking lot -- gobbling popcorn and swilling coke before they go inside.
They're pretty good. Academic blogs are a small enough world that it's unlikely that someone would be able to impersonate a noted character at length and get away with it. The person with this account stops by the comment threads regularly and has for quite some time. My previous interactions with him indicate that he's the genuine article.
I could be wrong, of course, but that'd be the smart way to bet.
Very good. Thank you.
Second, I don't think your complementary goods argument is as strong as you think. Stadium seating could be looked at as a complementary good as well. Some theaters have stadium seating in some but not all of their multiplex movie rooms. But they don't charge once for the movie and again if you want to see it in a room with stadium seating.
Audio heatsets for the hard-of-hearing are complementary goods as well. To some, like popcorn, they are not worth much. To others, they add much enjoyment to the movie experience. Yet I've never seen a movie theater charge for this "extra". So I'm just saying there's more to it than first meets the eye.
No they're not, they are mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act, so theatres can't charge extra for them.
Oh and as for Lott, even if he did conduct the surveys, his figures on defensive use of firearms are still bogus because he neglects to consider the margin of error in his surveys. His reported rates of defensive gun use are within the margin of error, (and represent about the same percentage of the population who have been kidnapped by aliens or encountered Bigfoot) so his extrapolations are meaningless, and the conclusions he draws from it, meaningless.
Great point :^)
- Alaska Jack
Except newspapers don't report when someone has been kidnapped by aliens or encountered Bigfoot. People's arguments are more persuasive when (a) they make one, and (b) they at least attempt to conceal their biases.
For example, Ayers does not inspire one with his good faith, by picking cutesy titles like Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis, and The Latest Misfires in Support of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis
But if you check the links to Amazon in my post you see Lott's signature appears on the review there -- I certainly did not add it.
And Lott has never denied posting that review to Amazon -- he just evades the question if you ask him about it.
But this thread is about Freedomnomics. Todd Zywicki found that Lott's chapter on crime was very strong, so I suggest he checks whether the paper by Helland and Tabarrok, Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 2004 finds that concealed carry reduces violent crime as Lott claims in his book. I understand that Alex Tabarrok blogs at Marginal Revolution, so his email should be easy to find.
They don't report the levels of defensive gun use that Lott alleges his surveys prove either. He puts it down to media bias. I guess that is the same reason alien abductions and Bigfoot encounters don't get more press coverage either.
Lott's arguments (more guns, less crime) would be more persuasive if they were supported by actual facts instead of manipulated and selected use of data to support an unsupportable conclucsion. Just look at the violent crime rates in this country and they contradict his central argument. Granted, they do not support the opposite contention either (less guns, less crime), but his original contention has been thoroughly discredited.
Lott's arguments (more guns, less crime) would be more persuasive if they were supported by actual facts instead of manipulated and selected use of data to support an unsupportable conclucsion. Just look at the violent crime rates in this country and they contradict his central argument. Granted, they do not support the opposite contention either (less guns, less crime), but his original contention has been thoroughly discredited.
so I don't think Lott's 2% to 5% DGU is at all unreasonable: all DGUs known to me personally have been chase-offs.
The most extreme of Lott's critics are arguing that there may be an increase which is observable.
In a society that valued choice, that result would be taken as support for shall-issue CCW.
In the sentence where this number was used in More Guns, Less Crime, I used a number that was biased against the claim that I was making. The point of the paragraph was to explain why many defensive gun uses were not newsworthy and thus it was understandable why the media didn't cover them. Defensive gun uses that do not result in the death or injury of the criminal are not particularly newsworthy and thus the greater percentage of defensive gun uses that do not result in death or injury, the greater the justification for the media not covering most defensive gun uses. I believe that there is media bias generally against guns, but the point was the vast majority of newsworthiness decisions do not involve evidence of bias. If I had wanted to use this number to claim media bias, I could easily have picked one of the couple other estimates over the previous 20 years that showed somewhat lower rates of brandishings and warning shots. The point was that the number that I picked was picked because it was biased against my claim.
J. F. Thomas
I have used all the crime data that has been available when I have done my studies. 1977 was the first year that county level crime data was available. I used data up until the last year that it was available, and I used the data for all 3,140 counties. Most of the studies find results similar to or larger than what I found. For some see here. I have used more control variables than any other study. For example, why don't any of my critics use all the other gun control law variables that I have supplied or put anything about these other laws together on their own?
James Wright and Peter Rossi analysed a survey of felons for the NIJ that was published by Aldine in the mid-1980s. If I recall correctly (I am using my grandson's laptop and do not have access to my archives) that involve 1874 convicts in 18 prisons in ten states. The thing felons feared most (more than arrest or conviction) was an armed victim. The point is, the effect of DGU on the crime rate would only show up if the "gun free environment" goal were achieved, totally removing any deterrent effect of the armed citizen. For a report on that, see Joyce Lee Malcolm's second book on England.
Southwick did not get 59,000 DGUs with shots fired. He got 59,000 DGUs per year in total from NCVS data for 1979-1987. He did not give a number for the percentage with shots fired, but for NCVS 1987-90 it was 28%. For Kleck it was 24% and for NSPOF it was 27%. See here .
The only surveys that supposedly give numbers like Lott's are the alleged 1997 survey -- but it is mathematically impossible for it to give that result (what percentage is 2/28?) and the 2002 survey, which simply does not give the result he claims (is 1/13 equal to 5%?).
Actually, the claim that Lott was making in More Guns, Less Crime was that “underreporting of defensive gun use is large”. The extraordinarily high brandishing rates that Lott claims his surveys found are biased TOWARDS this claim. The lack of news coverage can be explained if defensive gun use is not as frequent as Lott claims and as the National Crime Victimization Survey indicates.
STATE: Florida
Duration of law: 20 years
Carry licenses issued: 1,274,356
Licenses revoked for ANY crime after licensure: 3,311
Licenses revoked for GUN-RELATED crime after licensure: 162
162! That makes permit holders among the least likely people to misuse firearms in a crime.
It surely provides NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER for the "sky is falling" crowd. And NONE for John Lott's critics.
As they say in law school, "When the facts and law are against you, attack the opposing lawyer."
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
St. Louis University Public Law Review
Gun Control Symposium
vol 18, no. 1, 1999: 217
GUNS AND JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE:
DETERRENCE AND DEFENSE
Lawrence Southwick, Jr.
on page 13, his 59,000 figures is an estimate of shooting DGUs, read the article, page 13 and 59,000 has nothing to do with the NCVS survey data (NCVS is a measure of: Were you a victim of a crime? if yes, did you resist? if yes, did you use a gun? The NCVS figure is UNSUCCESSFUL DGUs)
~200 positive DGU respondents from a survey of ~5000 can give an indication of the number of DGUs, but ~200 is not large enough for a national sample on details about DGU.
For those who are confused, there is a difference between defensive gun use rates and the rate that those defensive gun uses actually harm the criminal is important. An earlier post confuses those two issues.
And if ~200 of NSDS respondents were not a good national sample for details on DGU, the 45 raw and 19 vetted DGU respondents of NSPOF is even tinier. A valid national sample would require at least 600 positive respondents according to Kleck. Or the method used in the Southwick paper I cited above.
Kleck did not warn that the 24% was not statistically sound because 200 was too small a sample. Have you actually read his paper? The general rule of thumb is that you need a sample size of 30 before you can find anything useful. So Kleck's 200 was OK, but the 7 DGU respondents that Lott found in his 2002 survey is too small and Lott cannot validly claim that this survey confirms anything.
- Alaska Jack
Then explain New York City's crime rate or the fact that New Orleans has the highest murder rate in the country or that the murder rate in Dallas and Chicago (one city with very liberal gun laws, the other with very strict) are roughly the same.
The problem is that the same number of people you found who claimed they had used a gun defensively is about the same number of people, who if asked, would say they saw Bigfoot or were abducted by aliens. That is why any serious unbiased researcher will throw out 2-3% of his survey results, because 2-3% of the population are pathological liars, insane, or just make shit up to please the interviewer. So all your DGU data is worthless, and if you were honest, you would admit it.
Is this really true? Regular readers of the Conspiracy, do you know any such person?
J. F. Thomas:
So to follow your logic, gay people likely don't exist, because they are surveyed to be in the population in the same general range (under 5%). Since 2-3% of the population just make s*** up, you are saying that we can assume that data on gay people is worthless. Maybe Ahmedinajad was onto something.
Operation Self Defense
Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog
Most of these news reports involve defensive shootings where an assailant got shot and hurt. I would not be surprised if there are many more brandishings where the criminal makes a hasty exit and the incident (reasonably) does not make the news, or even reaches the police.
Not to mention gems like this one (From page 109 of Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis, page 10 in the PDF):
and page 148:
It is strange that Ayers and Donohue would spend so much time on this research and destroy their perception of credibility with this loose talk.
Of course, Tim, you actually have no idea what I think of Lott's credibility, but don't let that prevent you from making stuff up. Feel free to conflate other commenters' opinions with my own.
And I should point out that "phallic symbols" is not a "cutesy title". It is part of the argument inside the paper. Please consider reading it - I provided the link and page numbers.
phallusfirearm around all day.The ability to be armed on the job is valuable: The worker most likely to be killed by another is not a police officer, but a cab driver.
From Wikipedia:
So they actually had a larger sample size than John Lott and found about the same incidence of alien abductions as purported DGU. Just think if those poor abductees had been armed, they could have bagged themselves an alien.
Another thing about Lott's research. He has never shown that shall issue or relaxed concealed carry laws actually lead to a higher rate of citizen concealed carry. It is just as reasonable to assume that it merely encourages people who were already carrying firearms to legitimate their actions and doesn't actually mean more people carry weapons because it is now legal to do so.
If you add the parent who has been off on a business trip at a Saturday matinee, or even better (for higher pricing) the non-custodial parent at that same matinee, then the benefits being purchased have little to do with the innate value and market prices of the goods.
When you see something that does not fit in an economic model, you may well be ignoring something that you consider an externality that is in fact not an externality.
This is not a good long run strategy for the theater. The time of demonstrating this is a transient phenomenon only, yet the high prices occur during the steady-state relationship as well. Soon enough, the object of desire starts thinking of "your money" as "our money," and decides it could be better spent on goods other than popcorn.
The result is, before long, your ood suggests you stay in and pop your own corn while watching Netflix.
In my experience this is largely if not exclusively the case. I had a good friend who was a projectionist for Edwards in Southern California. Besides the occasional after hour showing and helping him maintain the projectors, I learned a little about the financial arrangements that theaters have to make. For major films, the distributor receives a percentage of the ticket price (declining over a time period of weeks) set by the theater and for very popular movies, this percentage is above 100 percent so the theater pays more then the ticket price for the film. One thing we never did after hours was take soda or candy. They were VERY careful about inventory control which in the case of sodas involved counting the cups. This was never a problem of course since being after hours we just brought our own food.
I know of four incidents were women I know defended themselves with guns resulting in chase-offs without shots fired. So Defensive Gun Use does happen and the vast majority are no shots fired. To pretend otherwise is acting far more like the Flat Earth Society than recognising it as fact.