Snowboarding prevented “a major contraction”

A book review about a new book on spontaneous order and politics throws out a point about snowboarding as well. It’s meant to be an illustration of the unpredictability of life, and how it’s important to adapt–or die.

Harrison sees neoclassical economics, both free-market and interventionist, as stuck in a static-equilibrium-model way of thinking that deters progress and limits understanding. Progress happens when an equilibrium is shattered, something no economic model, no matter how sophisticated the formulas through which it is expressed, can predict. The key is understanding evolutionary dynamics and being open enough to let them happen.

He uses the fascinating example of snowboarding. The first snowboarders were baggy-panted delinquents likely to be stoners who were less than welcome at respectable ski resorts; some resorts banned them. But snowboarding kept growing in popularity, and now ski resorts not only tolerate boarders, they welcome them and design trails for them.

Michael Perry, president of the National Ski Areas Association, now says that “if it wasn’t for snowboarding, the industry would have suffered a major contraction.”

No economist or trade association predicted that snowboarding would save the ski-resort industry, and the industry’s first impulse was to discourage it. Eventually it had the good sense to let the evolution happen.

I’d like to see that quote from Perry sometime. It sounds plausible, though it should also be noted that snowboarding participation reached a plateau for a few years. The financial impact of snowboarding varies from hill to hill. The Aspen Ski company, for example, gets less than 20 percent of its business from snowboarders, if I recall correctly. Many areas in the Pacific Northwest, however, draw about half of their customers from riding.

The larger point is true, however: The benefits of uncomfortable changes are often not obvious, but can be essential.