Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Israeli MP Plans Passing a New Popcorn Law

Posted by samzenpus on from the movie-quality-assurance-law dept.

Israeli lawmaker Carmel Shama is taking on the tough issue of overpriced popcorn at the movies. "We have to put an end to this. The public should not have to mortgage their houses for a soft drink and a snack," Shama said. He plans to bring his "popcorn law," which would put limits on what public entertainment venues could charge, up for a vote when the parliament returns from Passover break next week. I'm sure Israelis are glad that they have no other issues that need to be addressed right now.

6 of 51 comments (clear)

  1. Right by AP31R0N · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because the Israeli gov't can work on exactly ONE problem at a time. Science can only work on curing cancer and nothing else.

    *sigh*

    Frack you, subby.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  2. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I wonder if he realizes they have to charge that much to stay in business. The movie companies take most of the profits for showing the movies.

    1. Re:hmmm by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_gouging

      Did you *read* the wikipedia article to which you linked? Expensive popcorn is not price gouging. Price gouging is when, for example, you raise the price of your bread from $2 per loaf to $20 per loaf after a hurricane. If your bread was always $20 per loaf it's not price gouging. Also, price gouging typically only applies to 'essentials' like food, fuel etc. A big tub o' popcorn and a liter of pepsi is hardly an essential.

  3. This should work well.. by dentree4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    popcorn goes from 10 to 2, movie goes from 10 to 18 to compensate, This won't work well...

  4. Efficient price discrimination, better for goers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Overpriced drinks and food is actually better for consumers from an "equality" perspective.

    This is because, if the drinks and food weren't overpriced, everyone could buy them, but cinema tickets would have to be higher to compensate.

    At the moment, people with less money can still go to see movies very comfortably so long as they just drink and eat a bit before the film. That's not a very large burden. It's also efficient from the perspective of cinemas - because with a fixed amount of seats (and a theatre that is usually not filled up), you maximise money by getting in everyone willing to pay anything at the highest price they are willing to pay. People with lots of money buy tickets and spend huge amounts on popcorn and drinks, people with less money buy tickets and don't spend on drinks. Each pays as much as they can afford.

    Assuming that there is efficient competition in the cinema space, you couldn't lower the money taken without cinemas closing their doors, so they would have to get it from somewhere else.

  5. Re:Problem with broken competition by LordVader717 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I go to a restaurant I pay for a meal. If I don't I'm taking up space. They'll throw me out even if I don't take anything along. When I go to the cinema I go there to watch a movie and have already payed for an expensive ticket.

    Should a hotel confiscate your phone on the grounds that you're less likely to use the pricey hotel phone and WiFi services?
    Should airlines confiscate iPods and the like because they want to force you to pay for in-flight entertainment?