Reading Analysis - 12/4

A.) I find it interesting that a golf course can generate such strong effects on a supply-demand curve. I'm a golfer myself, so I know the whole ordeal to get a good tee time at a good course. But I've never experienced anything like this: a course where the demand HUGELY outweighs the supply, enough so that a second market evolves within the first market to get on Bethpage Black. Without the NY golf shuttle, the price of playing a round of 18 is close to $100, a bargain based on the reputation of the course. Due to this fact and the fact that the course resides in Long Island, one of the most densely populated areas in the U.S, the demand to play one round of golf is incredibly high. So high that we actually start to see lines form just to get on the course that day. But the shuttle introduces a much different effect on peoples' behaviors. The shuttle charges $800, a price close to 2 times the prices of some of the most expensive public courses in the country, just to arrange a tee time. Even though the company has rigged the system to an extent, an individual is still not guaranteed a tee time when they want one. Also, people who choose to use the NY golf shuttle endure additional non-monetary costs for the time and effort they spend trying to "sneak around" and avoid the regulations set by the course. The course does not like the idea of people paying 8 times as much money to get onto the same course, but the shuttle adapted to the course's regulations and still the problem exists. Whether the course likes it or not, the NY Golf Shuttle is really the only way for people to get onto the course and this should continue until the prosecution actually finds something that can bring the company down.

B.) Is the shuttle even bad? It does, after all, lower demand and more people who want to play can play.
      Why does the course have a problem with the Shuttle?
      How much are the non-monetary costs really greater when people choose to not use the Shuttle?

C.) This reading was assigned because it demonstrates the effects of the introduction of a second market on individuals' behaviors. It demonstrates that as prices go up steeply, the demand to play does go down. However, the behaviors of the demanders is overall fairly inelastic because people still fight to get on the course even though it costs 8 times as much to play there.