6 ms·

If these were concert or sports tickets the people doing it would be called "scalpers". The world is a curious place, full of contradiction and wonder. We only

If these were concert or sports tickets the people doing it would be called "scalpers". The world is a curious place, full of contradiction and wonder. We only like the free market for some activities.

kardos 11y ago
> We only like the free market for some activities. As we should... the free market is not a cure-all, it's good for some things, poor for others.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  People buy up all the Bruce Springsteen tickets and try to charge 5x the face value - outrage People buy up all the houses, "meh"
  - praptak 11y ago
    It isn't "buy up all the houses". "Oppose new development so that the price of my house keeps raising" is more like it. And there is outrage. NIMBYs are perceived as selfish assholes.
  - braythwayt 11y ago
    > People buy up all the houses, “meh" Where do you live? Throughout North American there are people bemoaning the effects of gentrification on neighbourhoods. Whether you agree or disagree, there is clearly no “meh” going on.
raverbashing 11y ago
But as opposed to a ticket to a once a year concert you're just buying something that's in abundance (ad space) I can't feel too much sorry for the ones paying more in this case.
ikeboy 11y ago
Scalpers provide liquidity, like most arbitrageurs. If reselling tickets was impossible and the price remained the same, then people who didn't manage to get one would be out of luck; now, they can pay more and still get one. Scalping is only possible when the market value of the ticket is more than the price charged, which means the demand will outstrip the supply.
- braythwayt 11y ago
  “Scalpers make Benefit X possible” says nothing about whether “Scalpers create Harm Y.” For example, you say "If reselling tickets was impossible and the price remained the same, then people who didn't manage to get one would be out of luck; now, they can pay more and still get one.” But if there is a fixed supply of tickets, then there are a fixed number of people getting tickets. All you are changing is which people get the tickets. Yes, people with more money and less time to stand in line or whatever will get a ticket. Yay! But people with less money can no longer stand in line and get a ticket. Boo?
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >But if there is a fixed supply of tickets, then there are a fixed number of people getting tickets. All you are changing is which people get the tickets. To be precise, you're allocating the tickets to those who value them the most, under the objective criteria of "who's willing to pay the most for them" (which may not be fair, but in the same way that capitalism favors those capable of getting money). >But people with less money can no longer stand in line and get a ticket. Boo? Those people value their tickets less than the people who actually get them. If you're only willing to pay X for a ticket, and someone else will pay Y>X, then the situation where you get a ticket for X and they don't isn't Pareto optimal; you'd prefer to sell your ticket for Y, and they'd prefer to buy your ticket for Y. (This does assume something about utility of money, which isn't strictly justified. To wit, I'm assuming that an unwillingness to pay more than X<Y for something implies a willingness to sell it for Y after you've gotten it. For X and Y sufficiently far apart, this should be true, but it might not be if they're close. On the other hand, if they're close then the harm here is very low.)

kardos 11y ago

> We only like the free market for some activities. As we should... the free market is not a cure-all, it's good for some things, poor for others.

SixSigma 11y ago
People buy up all the Bruce Springsteen tickets and try to charge 5x the face value - outrage People buy up all the houses, "meh"
- praptak 11y ago
  It isn't "buy up all the houses". "Oppose new development so that the price of my house keeps raising" is more like it. And there is outrage. NIMBYs are perceived as selfish assholes.
- braythwayt 11y ago
  > People buy up all the houses, “meh" Where do you live? Throughout North American there are people bemoaning the effects of gentrification on neighbourhoods. Whether you agree or disagree, there is clearly no “meh” going on.

raverbashing 11y ago

But as opposed to a ticket to a once a year concert you're just buying something that's in abundance (ad space) I can't feel too much sorry for the ones paying more in this case.

ikeboy 11y ago

Scalpers provide liquidity, like most arbitrageurs. If reselling tickets was impossible and the price remained the same, then people who didn't manage to get one would be out of luck; now, they can pay more and still get one. Scalping is only possible when the market value of the ticket is more than the price charged, which means the demand will outstrip the supply.

braythwayt 11y ago
“Scalpers make Benefit X possible” says nothing about whether “Scalpers create Harm Y.” For example, you say "If reselling tickets was impossible and the price remained the same, then people who didn't manage to get one would be out of luck; now, they can pay more and still get one.” But if there is a fixed supply of tickets, then there are a fixed number of people getting tickets. All you are changing is which people get the tickets. Yes, people with more money and less time to stand in line or whatever will get a ticket. Yay! But people with less money can no longer stand in line and get a ticket. Boo?
- ikeboy 11y ago
  >But if there is a fixed supply of tickets, then there are a fixed number of people getting tickets. All you are changing is which people get the tickets. To be precise, you're allocating the tickets to those who value them the most, under the objective criteria of "who's willing to pay the most for them" (which may not be fair, but in the same way that capitalism favors those capable of getting money). >But people with less money can no longer stand in line and get a ticket. Boo? Those people value their tickets less than the people who actually get them. If you're only willing to pay X for a ticket, and someone else will pay Y>X, then the situation where you get a ticket for X and they don't isn't Pareto optimal; you'd prefer to sell your ticket for Y, and they'd prefer to buy your ticket for Y. (This does assume something about utility of money, which isn't strictly justified. To wit, I'm assuming that an unwillingness to pay more than X<Y for something implies a willingness to sell it for Y after you've gotten it. For X and Y sufficiently far apart, this should be true, but it might not be if they're close. On the other hand, if they're close then the harm here is very low.)