Do I have to give dibs to a higher priced Cubs parking space seller?

AgentRocket — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:25:48 -0800

Wrigleyville residents/capitalist theorists: am I obliged to honor the "dibs" system while selling my parking spot during Cubs night games? We own a place about 2 blocks from Wrigley Field, and for night games we often park on the street and then sell our empty private parking spot. We generally don't plan ahead for this; we just do it if we are at home anyway. I like the concept of it, and the money pays for take out that night.

The going rate for parking so close to the ballpark is typically $30, but because I'm more interested in quick money than maximum profit I charge $20. This usually guarantees me a fast sell. If I had to charge $30 and compete for a buyer, I'd probably sell half as often because it would not be worth it for me from a time standpoint.

So last night, I went out to the entrance to the alley and there were already two other parking sellers there waving at cars. Each of them had at least two spots to sell, and each was charging $30. One of the sellers told me in pretty pointed terms that (1) I should be charging $30 like the rest of them, and (2) there is a well-established "dibs" system that calls for later arriving sellers to stand down until the earlier ones have sold their spots. She then tried to put me in my place by saying that I must be new to the area. The other seller there agreed that the dibs system is known and honored around the neighborhood.

I explained that I've lived there five years, that I price my parking to sell quickly, and that she is free to charge whatever she wants but I shouldn't have to wait for her to get a higher price while other cars may be passing her by looking for a deal like mine. Nonetheless, to be nice I let her and the other woman have a car each, then started selling mine. After I got my buyer, I am told by a neighbor that these two other sellers were bad-mouthing me for not allowing them to sell out their spots first and for undercutting their price. Some thanks.

To me, market economics rules here. If I want to sell for a cheaper price, I can do that and I get the benefit of the first car that comes. If they want the first car they can match my price or go lower. To them, we should all be in it together, and price competition will just minimize profit for everyone. So which rules here? Am I being a bad neighbor for not following the unwritten rule, or should I be free to undercut my neighbor's price and jump the queue?

(I will note that both sellers totally tried to poach my customer even after I allowed them their turn first, and that there are literally sellers at every corner so there's no way to do a dibs system except at the most local level.)

(I will also note that while I have in the past heard half-hearted complaints from other sellers that I was undercutting them, they seemed to accept that this was part of the game. After all, we are all out there to soak suburbanites in the first place.)

What's the standard charge against Standard Oil with regard to railroad rebates?

yesno — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:12:13 -0800

What's the standard charge against Standard Oil with regard to railroad rebates? I'm diving into the history of antitrust, and a repeated charge made against Standard Oil is that they were such a dominant shipper, that they were able to treat railroads very harshly.

From what I've seen, they got huge volume discounts, in addition to a discount that was designed to be a percentage of the railroad's other business (so designed, apparently, to make sure that the railroads bled everything they could without going under). This latter behavior is called "drawbacks."

(The railroads later sought rate regulation with open arms as a means to prevent themselves from giving such handsome discounts: an instance where the regulated industry players think they can make more money if they're told they're not allowed to charge under a certain amount.)

Everything I've read about SO and the railroads either defends SO's behavior as legal, rational economic behavior, or attacks it but without much basis. (See what they did? See how big they were? That's bad!)

I am looking to read a more reasoned attack on SO, justifying the antitrust actions, public outcry, and the breakup of that concern. Can you point me to sources that relate the traditional charge in a thorough way, countering the defenses of SO made by Chicago-style economists?

Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with antitrust

Do I have to give dibs to a higher priced Cubs parking space seller?

What's the standard charge against Standard Oil with regard to railroad rebates?