Your statements indicate you believe you have sufficient knowledge and skill to manage at least the entire restaurant segment of the economy. At least that’s what I hear. So far, no collectivist has been able to pull that sort if thing off. East Germany got close, but they had the Stasi.
And how, without using force, even if just the force of law, could you expect to compel businesses to do something they think is bad for them in their specific situation? The force of law, of course, includes either armed agents or confiscatory and bankrupting fines. Or both. Think Stasi here.
Sorry if you do not intend to be a collectivist totalitarian. But the things you say suggest otherwise to me.
Plus, you still have not accounted for the price elasticity of demand.
Don’t know how you can come to that conclusion. All I did was run an extremely simple calculation of how much a business would need to increase its prices to pay for a 12.5% increase in costs.
As I very clearly stated, it’s based on the assumption that all else remains the same, and I also said all else never does remain the same.
Probably unlike you, I’ve actually worked for a company driven out of business by a not dissimilar situation.
Most of the commenters here seem to think there’s something illegitimate about trying to estimate the severity of the impact of such a change. Instead we’re supposed to just assume it will be catastrophic. Meanwhile, the other side assumes it will be no big deal.
What exactly is wrong about trying to estimate the effects of a policy in advance? Seems to me this is an indisputably conservative approach.
“For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.”
Bjorn Lomborg made a big name for himself 10 years ago or so by looking at the doomsday prophecies of the greenies quantitatively. IOW, while agreeing that in many ways the environment was deteriorating, he tried to answer those rather critical questions: How much? How fast?
IOW, quantification, not just claims of BAD THINGS.
Irritated the hell out of enviros, largely because the actual data showed their claims to be wildly exaggerated and in many cases the opposite of the facts. Many aspects of the environment are getting better. So they attacked him personally.
That's pretty much what happened on this thread. I made a feeble attempt to quantify the impact of a proposed policy and was denounced as a Stalinist.
As has been known for centuries, if you don't put numbers to an issue, you aren't really interested in understanding it.
And here's an issue very well suited indeed for quantitative analysis.
Rant off.