4 ms·

Why not? The only reason to believe this is to believe that having more money means you're inherently more deserving of things, no matter the wishes of the peop

Why not? The only reason to believe this is to believe that having more money means you're inherently more deserving of things, no matter the wishes of the people providing those things.

jstanley 10y ago
It's not about deserving in any sort of moral sense. If I offer you $1000 for something you're selling, and someone else offers $2000, who are you going to sell it to? He obviously is willing to give you more, so give it to him. That's fair. That's life. EDIT: And if you sell it to me for $1000, don't be surprised if I turn around and sell it to the $2000 guy. He wants it more than I do, and he's going to get it one way or another.
- darpa_escapee 10y ago
  Would your explanation still be as just-so if I chose to sell the item for <=$1000 to you because you are a friend or family?
- RodericDay 10y ago
  There are numerous reasons why I could and would choose to go with the first person in spite of a lower offer.
- ctrl-j 10y ago
  But that's not the situation at hand. It's three people offering me $1000 for something, I give it to you because you're the first person. Then, you turn around and say "hey, I'm selling this for $2000 because I never wanted it in the first place!" The two other people who were waiting can't afford it. Some other guy comes along later who can afford it and pays up. It's not fair, it's one of the nasty grimy sides of capitalism. Scalpers are 100% middle-men who don't add value. The tickets would sell at base cost. All they do is artificially inflate the value of tickets.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    > Scalpers are 100% middle-men who don't add value. The tickets would sell at base cost. All they do is artificially inflate the value of tickets. Economic theory would say that 1) value, in contrast to price, is personal. Everything has a different value to everyone. For instance, it's a good bet French books have more value to me than to you, because I actually speak that language. 2) inflating value is impossible. Cannot be done So scalpers inflate the price, not the value. And only because of an inefficient market. Why is a lower price market inefficient ? It's not at equilibrium. That means there are either shortages or oversupply. And indeed : your complaint points out exactly that : a shortage. The scalpers actually do provide services for that profit : 1) they maintain ticket availability far beyond the original sale 2) they take risk away from the artist (some scalpers even in cooperation with the artist) (I bet real scalpers would also point out that both of these, the investment and the extended availability involve actual work that needs to be done. As in answering mails, posting stuff online, going out to sell the tickets, ...) So you're wrong on both fronts. They neither inflate value, nor do they lack services. And frankly, the only person who can solve this for real is the artist : if they find a way to do enough shows so everyone can watch, that is (obviously) the only way to guarantee everyone can make it. This is not hard, but because of the risk rarely done. Ironically, more and earlier scalping is one of the things that would make it a lot easier for the artist to do this, at least financially. Some artists do this, but perhaps that is more work for less (average) reward for the artist. Given these incentives, I would expect firstly that artists and venues would scalp tickets themselves, and secondly that all attempts at stomping out scalping will both make the problem worse and merely be a method to guarantee more profit for the designated scalpers. Of course in practice those are also exactly the people who don't want to take the financial risk, and so you'll have pussyfooting all around, lack of conviction, general complaints by everyone, and screwups.
    - matwood 10y ago
      Good post. Everyone also seems to forget that scalpers sometimes have to sell at a loss if the event is not as popular. This is why event organizers don't mind scalpers and only pay lip service to stopping them.
    - 10y ago
- vertex-four 10y ago
  I don't see why that's "fair" - your definition of fair is entirely based on an assertion that someone with more money should be able to get more things at the expense of others, even when the person/entity providing those things doesn't wish that to be the case. Or, in other words, your assertion is that capitalism is inherently fair, because you're defining fair as anything that is the result of capitalism.
- Paul-ish 10y ago
  All the arguments along these lines with respect to scalpers get caught in the "is-ought" problem [1]. You are describing the economic situation and saying "This is the way things are at the moment, therefore this is the way things ought to be". It is a leap that you don't really justify. If people want to take a libertarian approach, why don't you say it is the person selling the tickets prerogative to do every legal thing in their power to limit prices. It is their show after all. It would be as if I started selling piggy back rides to my friends for $10. When some random guy realizes my friends really like piggy back rides (for whatever strange reason), so he buys all my piggy back rides. I'm all booked. He then turns around and tries to sell them to my friends for $20. What the scalper apologist arguments are saying is that any attempt by me to tell this scalper to get lost is somehow wrong, because I am disturbing the natural order of things. It doesn't take into account that I care who I carry. To be clear, I'm not saying artists only selling to "poor people" is the sole right way or something of that sort. I'm just arguing against saying that second price auction is the only way to do things. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
- tveita 10y ago
  > If I offer you $1000 for something you're selling, and someone else offers $2000, who are you going to sell it to? But audience are not fungible. If you are to spend an evening with someone there are more important considerations involved than who will pay you the most money to do it, and trying to buy their way to that privilege could be a strong negative indicator.

Why not? The only reason to believe this is to believe that having more money means you're inherently more deserving of things, no matter the wishes of the people providing those things.

jstanley 10y ago

It's not about deserving in any sort of moral sense. If I offer you $1000 for something you're selling, and someone else offers $2000, who are you going to sell it to? He obviously is willing to give you more, so give it to him. That's fair. That's life. EDIT: And if you sell it to me for $1000, don't be surprised if I turn around and sell it to the $2000 guy. He wants it more than I do, and he's going to get it one way or another.

darpa_escapee 10y ago
Would your explanation still be as just-so if I chose to sell the item for <=$1000 to you because you are a friend or family?
RodericDay 10y ago
There are numerous reasons why I could and would choose to go with the first person in spite of a lower offer.
ctrl-j 10y ago
But that's not the situation at hand. It's three people offering me $1000 for something, I give it to you because you're the first person. Then, you turn around and say "hey, I'm selling this for $2000 because I never wanted it in the first place!" The two other people who were waiting can't afford it. Some other guy comes along later who can afford it and pays up. It's not fair, it's one of the nasty grimy sides of capitalism. Scalpers are 100% middle-men who don't add value. The tickets would sell at base cost. All they do is artificially inflate the value of tickets.
- candiodari 10y ago
  > Scalpers are 100% middle-men who don't add value. The tickets would sell at base cost. All they do is artificially inflate the value of tickets. Economic theory would say that 1) value, in contrast to price, is personal. Everything has a different value to everyone. For instance, it's a good bet French books have more value to me than to you, because I actually speak that language. 2) inflating value is impossible. Cannot be done So scalpers inflate the price, not the value. And only because of an inefficient market. Why is a lower price market inefficient ? It's not at equilibrium. That means there are either shortages or oversupply. And indeed : your complaint points out exactly that : a shortage. The scalpers actually do provide services for that profit : 1) they maintain ticket availability far beyond the original sale 2) they take risk away from the artist (some scalpers even in cooperation with the artist) (I bet real scalpers would also point out that both of these, the investment and the extended availability involve actual work that needs to be done. As in answering mails, posting stuff online, going out to sell the tickets, ...) So you're wrong on both fronts. They neither inflate value, nor do they lack services. And frankly, the only person who can solve this for real is the artist : if they find a way to do enough shows so everyone can watch, that is (obviously) the only way to guarantee everyone can make it. This is not hard, but because of the risk rarely done. Ironically, more and earlier scalping is one of the things that would make it a lot easier for the artist to do this, at least financially. Some artists do this, but perhaps that is more work for less (average) reward for the artist. Given these incentives, I would expect firstly that artists and venues would scalp tickets themselves, and secondly that all attempts at stomping out scalping will both make the problem worse and merely be a method to guarantee more profit for the designated scalpers. Of course in practice those are also exactly the people who don't want to take the financial risk, and so you'll have pussyfooting all around, lack of conviction, general complaints by everyone, and screwups.
  - matwood 10y ago
    Good post. Everyone also seems to forget that scalpers sometimes have to sell at a loss if the event is not as popular. This is why event organizers don't mind scalpers and only pay lip service to stopping them.
  - 10y ago
vertex-four 10y ago
I don't see why that's "fair" - your definition of fair is entirely based on an assertion that someone with more money should be able to get more things at the expense of others, even when the person/entity providing those things doesn't wish that to be the case. Or, in other words, your assertion is that capitalism is inherently fair, because you're defining fair as anything that is the result of capitalism.
Paul-ish 10y ago
All the arguments along these lines with respect to scalpers get caught in the "is-ought" problem [1]. You are describing the economic situation and saying "This is the way things are at the moment, therefore this is the way things ought to be". It is a leap that you don't really justify. If people want to take a libertarian approach, why don't you say it is the person selling the tickets prerogative to do every legal thing in their power to limit prices. It is their show after all. It would be as if I started selling piggy back rides to my friends for $10. When some random guy realizes my friends really like piggy back rides (for whatever strange reason), so he buys all my piggy back rides. I'm all booked. He then turns around and tries to sell them to my friends for $20. What the scalper apologist arguments are saying is that any attempt by me to tell this scalper to get lost is somehow wrong, because I am disturbing the natural order of things. It doesn't take into account that I care who I carry. To be clear, I'm not saying artists only selling to "poor people" is the sole right way or something of that sort. I'm just arguing against saying that second price auction is the only way to do things. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
tveita 10y ago
> If I offer you $1000 for something you're selling, and someone else offers $2000, who are you going to sell it to? But audience are not fungible. If you are to spend an evening with someone there are more important considerations involved than who will pay you the most money to do it, and trying to buy their way to that privilege could be a strong negative indicator.