Hypothetical Panty Economics—February, 2007
What if I told you, that since their introduction to U.S. consumers in 1939, sales of thong underwear have fallen short of the expectations of their manufacturers? Did you know the government is disappointed with the current sales volume of thong underwear? Could I convince you that certain folks in lofty public positions have a panty pet project and close friends in the textiles industry?
Since their introduction in New York City in 1939*, sales of thong underwear have been lukewarm compared to other—I think it’s safe to say, more traditional—underwear. This is disappointing to panty manufacturers. You see, thong underwear has several profit-driving advantages over typical undies. They require less raw material. They demand fewer manufacturing steps. Their decreased bulk makes them easier to package, ship, and display in high volumes. Each sale has the potential for greater profits.
The only problem with thong undies is they don’t sell as well as some would hope. Many feel that thongs are uncomfortable. Some feel they are too revealing, and perhaps, less wholesome. Others feel they are less hygienic. For whatever reasons, thongs don’t sell well—comparatively speaking.
These decreased sales trouble people in the industry who lament lost profits. But, with a few well-placed campaign contributions and a small army of cute, thong-clad lobbyists, some in government circles are taking notice of—and an interest in—panty economics. And, in exchange for continued campaign contributions and cute lobbyists, these officials are developing plans.
Of course, government officials can’t simply come out and say, “People of the world, please buy more thong panties.” This would be unseemly. It would almost certainly reek of corruption and the influence of big business. It simply couldn’t happen this way. And, of course, the underwear manufacturers already do this every day through advertising. It isn’t working, which is precisely why they’ve enlisted the help of the government. Therefore, the government must resort to more subverted, less obvious methods of manipulating the public.
For starters, tree-hugging candidates will embark on a campaign extolling the environmental virtues of thong underwear. Remember, thongs use less raw materials and fewer manufacturing steps. Ultimately, the production of thongs results in less contamination of the environment than does the production of typical underwear. The environmental effort will look something like this: Manufacturers whose total underwear production consists of less than 50% thongs will incur a penalty tax. This serves two purposes. First, it penalizes manufacturers that produce little-to-no thong underwear. Resultantly, their prices will rise. Second, it appears to punish the entire underwear industry which helps avert the suspicion of influence and corruption. But, since the corrupt underwear manufacturers are intent on producing tons of thong panties, they won’t be subject to the penalty tax anyway. Convenient, eh?
Here’s where the story gets interesting, though. An environmental campaign will only do so much to influence the behavior of manufacturers and consumers. So, the government must address consumer behavior directly if thong sales are going to improve any. How do they intend to do this? You won’t believe it.
Soon, people who buy typical underwear—bikinis, bloomers, boy shorts, etc.—will find themselves paying a penalty tax for doing so. And, though not yet passed through the legislature, at least one high-profile politician has suggested yet another means of influencing underwear sales. This program would involve a mix of new taxes and federal start-up funding. First, cities with large populations would receive government funding to purchase highly sensitive equipment that can detect whether a person is wearing normal underwear or thong underwear. It does so by measuring the reflection of ultraviolet light from the buttocks area. I don’t understand the technology enough to elaborate any further. This equipment will be used to equip city officials who will then collect a tax from those who pass through high traffic areas of the city while wearing typical underwear, instead of thongs. Those who wear no underwear—going commando—will pay the heaviest taxes. The equipment and taxes are intended to influence consumer behavior toward favoring thong underwear and to “protect the environment”.
Is this beginning to sound dubious? I hope so, because I’m making it up—most of it anyway. But, despite its silliness, it’s purposeful. I promise. If you think for a moment that big business and the government don’t partner up in subverted ways to unduly influence consumer purchasing behavior, think again. In fact, as we speak (or more appropriately, as you read), the city of Milwaukee is designing ways to force consumers into abandoning their cars to use an upcoming rail system. How do they intend on doing this? It’s interesting.
First, they’ll punish those who provide services other than light rail. For instance, Milwaukee intends to impose a tax—and not an insignificant one—with every car rental (Shook, 2007). The money from this tax will be funneled directly into supporting the light rail system, which analysts don’t believe will generate enough revenue to support itself. Why? Perhaps Milwaukee consumers aren’t interested in a light rail system. Second, if other pieces of legislation pass, cities will be equipped and obligated to impose tolls on people using cars during periods of heavy traffic. The tolls collected in these programs can be used to fund mass transit, environmentally friendly transportation services (Mckinnon, 2007).
So, let’s draw some parallels between my silly scenario and the real world around us. If you want people to wear thongs even when they obviously don’t want to, simply make regular underwear too expensive to purchase. If you want people to ride a light rail system even when they prefer their cars, simply use government power to make cars too expensive to operate. Capitalism, right?
If the analysts feel that a light rail won’t support itself, it’s because the free market doesn’t want it. The greater Milwaukee area is too spread out to be adequately serviced by a light rail system. Further, our interstate system, even at rush hour, is not the nightmare you’d find in Chicago, San Francisco, or New York City. And, compared to many other cities, Milwaukee is a profoundly easy city in which to find a parking spot. It’s simply not the type of city that is going to favor a light rail system. Forcing the issue only favors the manufacturers of the equipment. Consumers lose out.
So, keep your eyes on the media, and your underwear. I believe this light rail system will be forced upon us—like the stadium.
~ topher
* In 1939, New York City was hosting the World's Fair. I don't know if the thong panty made its debut at the World's Fair, but it's funny to picture an eager entrepreneur filling a booth with his new undies and a bunch of brochures for an international crowd.
McKinnon, John. (2007). Bush plays traffic cop in budget request. The Wall Street Journal. February 5, 2007.
Shook, Dennis. (2007). On track: Will the region finnaly get commuter rail? Shepherd Express. February 1, 2007.