TOPIC:

"TheBeerNut":1z1jbeg9 wrote: The full report by the University of Sheffield is here[/url:1z1jbeg9], with price elasticity dealt with from p.31 [/quote:1z1jbeg9]That puts the PED of beer at between .3 and .4 (i.e. really inelastic!)It also seems to assert, in its introduction, that an increase in household income has led to an increase in alcohol consumption - bit of a massive jump there!!
There was one very valid point made here[/url:1z1jbeg9] - namely that binge drinkers tend to pick cheaper alcohol. Hard to argue with!

"a_friend_in_mead":3ozsam3h wrote: If you accept that humans have a daily discount rate. And that paper provides evidence they do. Then their consumption is front loaded to enjoyment now.[/quote:3ozsam3h]The problem is seperating the 'beer connoseur' wheat from the 'binge drinking' chav. Our binge drinker is far more likely to have a higher discount rate (if you binge drink you are less worried about your future health, hangovers and not having any beer to drink tomorrow)
Which brings me to ponder if people are binge drinkers because they have a lower discount rate. Perhaps the government should only sell beer through mail-order, so the delay of having to wait a couple of days will fall off as those with a low discount rate wont be willing to spend money now if they cant drink it immediately...

Here[/url:3sf2crx7] is a list of price elasticities. Salt is really low so you'll buy it no matter what the price. Fresh fruit really high.

[quote:3sf2crx7]Which brings me to ponder if people are binge drinkers because they have a lower discount rate. Perhaps the government should only sell beer through mail-order, so the delay of having to wait a couple of days will fall off as those with a low discount rate wont be willing to spend money now if they cant drink it immediately...[/quote:3sf2crx7]

The delayed gratification test[/url:3sf2crx7] of children points in this direction (here[/url:3sf2crx7]). Waiting at a pedestrian crossing in town I've noticed those that break the light tend not to look like there late for highly important business meetings.

Just looked at the analysis of price elasticity and I have to say that this is one of the sneakiest reports I have ever seen.

They base their findings on two other reports, both of which are meta-analysis reports, which means that they themselves base their findings on the findings on a bunch of other reports.

I have a problem with meta-analysis reports, because they can be put together in such a way as to come to whatever conclusion you like, simply by picking and choosing the reports you use in your analysis.

From a post by myself on boards.ie:
[quote:3qs5vgry]
you could take a bunch of other reports from other countries or decades ago, pick out the bit's and pieces that you like and use them the "prove" what you want. If a report doesn't say what you want, ignore it and use another report. If a report has a bit that you like but other bits you don't, only refer to the bits you like. You don't have to print the rest of the data, just the good bits and a list of sources.[/quote:3qs5vgry]

It makes it very difficult for anyone to check your figures, because the figures you use are actually from a bunch of other reports, the quality of which is unknown and which you got to choose. There is nothing that says you have to include a report so if you find one that doesn't say what you want, you can leave it out of your meta-analysis. Handy.

If you have to make your report by examining statistics, you have to use the statistics that are available and relevant to the study. This means that any Joe soap can come along, look at the figures and go "Hang on, how did you work that out? You're ignoring all these figures over here."

Gallet's report examines 132 studies from all over space and time, while Wagenaar examines over 1000. While these figures sound impressive and are used to make the reports seem authoritative, what it actually means is that we have no effective way of checking whether the report is worth anything.

TheRegister.co.uk tear this report apart here: Junk science and booze tax - a study in spin[/url:3qs5vgry]

I was wrong. They didn't put any extra tax on alcohol.

Someone must have pointed out the obvious.

They didnt put any tax on alcohol as they said people would go to the north to buy their booze. Problem is that people are already going to the north to buy their booze.

What they should have done was lower VAT to incentivise people to make their beer purchase in their local store (generating income within the community). They did not.

In fact, what they decided to do was increase the income levy which makes the beer in their local store more expensive proportionate to their newly depleted income!!

If the reason for the freeze of excise on alcohol was to entice people to spend more money in the South, then they have failed.

Maybe they hope to get it back with the hike on the price of diesel that people need to go north!

Could they be that sneaky? I really dont think so:(