4 ms·

Well, they provide value. They make it possible for people/entities who needs things the most to actually get them instead of those who happen to be first in li

Well, they provide value. They make it possible for people/entities who needs things the most to actually get them instead of those who happen to be first in line or in lucky position to get access to supply.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Correction: they make it possible for people/entities who can afford to waste most money to get them instead of those first/lucky. But how is that a better outcome? And why should this involve people spending more money, and all the delta going to the person who was first in line or in lucky position to secure a loan and buy off all the supply?
- medvezhenok 5y ago
  Scalpers allow people who are not price sensitive or have inelastic demand priority over people who are lucky / first. The ethics depends on the exact case study provided. If it's a rich person buying an xbox (not price sensitive) - that's one thing, and most people would not support it. If it's someone needing an IC for a heart monitor to stay alive (inelastic demand), most would say that providing them an IC over someone who wants to play the latest video game is a good service. Scalpers do both (1) and (2).
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    Scalpers only do (2) for those who can afford it. If scalpers were willing to hand out goods on the merit of the application rather than profit then I’d have much more sympathy. But then they wouldn’t really be scalpers anymore. I’m willing to bet that scalpers starve critical applications of goods far more than they provide them. Providers of critical services are usually poorly funded.
  - bluecalm 5y ago
    Or maybe they are price sensitive but the goods are just worth more to them.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      The scalper can't distinguish between a poorer person who really needs a thing, and a richer person who just kinda wants it. They will happily price out the former before the latter gives up. There seems to be an assumption in the discussions about the market that people don't do stupid shit with money. That the same good cannot be both life-critical for one, and a source of cheap entertainment for another. That people only ever spend money to make more money. That they are perfectly consistent over time. That nothing is ever time-critical, it may be only time-discounted. But the reality is, people are irrational, things take time, and markets have inertia. In a scalper-managed shortage of critical medication, it's perfectly possible for a rich person who watched one too many end-of-the-world movies to buy up the supply at high markup, to stock their fallout shelter, and have it rot there while people who need it die. It takes time for a chip scalper to insert themselves into the market, buy up the supply and advertise their existence - in that time, the factories might be wasting megadollars of money.
- lmm 5y ago
  > they make it possible for people/entities who can afford to waste most money to get them instead of those first/lucky. But how is that a better outcome? It's not "waste", it's the people who are willing to spend the most money, which are presumably the people who want/need the thing most, so it's better than allocating the thing at random. > And why should this involve people spending more money, and all the delta going to the person who was first in line or in lucky position to secure a loan and buy off all the supply? The person who makes a good judgement about what things are underpriced is selling a service to the market and earning their cut. A seller who's paying attention should see the rush and raise their prices (and ideally increase production to match that).
  - puszczyk 5y ago
    > It's not "waste", it's the people who are willing to spend the most money, which are presumably the people who want/need the thing most, so it's better than allocating the thing at random. It’s not a waste, but it’s not best allocation either. It seems like the chips will go to established players with large and cheap credit lines and ossify the market even more. The scalpers are not like market makers who are regulated, provide both bid and ask, and whose spread is usually quite small in comparison to scalpers. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmakerspread.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmakerspread.asp
    - lmm 5y ago
      > It’s not a waste, but it’s not best allocation either. It seems like the chips will go to established players with large and cheap credit lines and ossify the market even more. Credit is cheap, and there's no particular barrier to entry (unless we're talking about things like backroom deals with concert promoters, which I'm sure does happen, but isn't an essential part of the business), so I'd expect this to be a fairly competitive market. > The scalpers are not like market makers who are regulated, provide both bid and ask, and whose spread is usually quite small in comparison to scalpers. Market maker regulation is relatively recent, and market making is recognised as having served a beneficial function long before that. Many of these ticket sites do list bid prices for your tickets as well. The spread is pretty wide compared to listed equities that trade hundreds of times a second, sure, but if you compare a single concert's ticket with a stock or bond that trades at a similar rate (which would be, like, the bottom end of the pink sheets) it's not so bad.
medvezhenok 5y ago
> Well, they provide value. They make it possible for people/entities who needs things the most to actually get them instead of those who happen to be first in line or in lucky position to get access to supply. True - they also take on some risk of being stuck with inventory that they can't resell at a profit (if prices drop between when they buy and sell). Ethically scalping feels wrong, but I think ethics aside, scalping does provide a service to the market.
- Lev1a 5y ago
  > Ethically scalping feels wrong, but I think ethics aside, scalping does provide a service to the market. Yeah fuck ethics, there's profit to be made. /s

TeMPOraL 5y ago

Correction: they make it possible for people/entities who can afford to waste most money to get them instead of those first/lucky. But how is that a better outcome? And why should this involve people spending more money, and all the delta going to the person who was first in line or in lucky position to secure a loan and buy off all the supply?

medvezhenok 5y ago
Scalpers allow people who are not price sensitive or have inelastic demand priority over people who are lucky / first. The ethics depends on the exact case study provided. If it's a rich person buying an xbox (not price sensitive) - that's one thing, and most people would not support it. If it's someone needing an IC for a heart monitor to stay alive (inelastic demand), most would say that providing them an IC over someone who wants to play the latest video game is a good service. Scalpers do both (1) and (2).
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Scalpers only do (2) for those who can afford it. If scalpers were willing to hand out goods on the merit of the application rather than profit then I’d have much more sympathy. But then they wouldn’t really be scalpers anymore. I’m willing to bet that scalpers starve critical applications of goods far more than they provide them. Providers of critical services are usually poorly funded.
- bluecalm 5y ago
  Or maybe they are price sensitive but the goods are just worth more to them.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    The scalper can't distinguish between a poorer person who really needs a thing, and a richer person who just kinda wants it. They will happily price out the former before the latter gives up. There seems to be an assumption in the discussions about the market that people don't do stupid shit with money. That the same good cannot be both life-critical for one, and a source of cheap entertainment for another. That people only ever spend money to make more money. That they are perfectly consistent over time. That nothing is ever time-critical, it may be only time-discounted. But the reality is, people are irrational, things take time, and markets have inertia. In a scalper-managed shortage of critical medication, it's perfectly possible for a rich person who watched one too many end-of-the-world movies to buy up the supply at high markup, to stock their fallout shelter, and have it rot there while people who need it die. It takes time for a chip scalper to insert themselves into the market, buy up the supply and advertise their existence - in that time, the factories might be wasting megadollars of money.
lmm 5y ago
> they make it possible for people/entities who can afford to waste most money to get them instead of those first/lucky. But how is that a better outcome? It's not "waste", it's the people who are willing to spend the most money, which are presumably the people who want/need the thing most, so it's better than allocating the thing at random. > And why should this involve people spending more money, and all the delta going to the person who was first in line or in lucky position to secure a loan and buy off all the supply? The person who makes a good judgement about what things are underpriced is selling a service to the market and earning their cut. A seller who's paying attention should see the rush and raise their prices (and ideally increase production to match that).
- puszczyk 5y ago
  > It's not "waste", it's the people who are willing to spend the most money, which are presumably the people who want/need the thing most, so it's better than allocating the thing at random. It’s not a waste, but it’s not best allocation either. It seems like the chips will go to established players with large and cheap credit lines and ossify the market even more. The scalpers are not like market makers who are regulated, provide both bid and ask, and whose spread is usually quite small in comparison to scalpers. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmakerspread.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmakerspread.asp
  - lmm 5y ago
    > It’s not a waste, but it’s not best allocation either. It seems like the chips will go to established players with large and cheap credit lines and ossify the market even more. Credit is cheap, and there's no particular barrier to entry (unless we're talking about things like backroom deals with concert promoters, which I'm sure does happen, but isn't an essential part of the business), so I'd expect this to be a fairly competitive market. > The scalpers are not like market makers who are regulated, provide both bid and ask, and whose spread is usually quite small in comparison to scalpers. Market maker regulation is relatively recent, and market making is recognised as having served a beneficial function long before that. Many of these ticket sites do list bid prices for your tickets as well. The spread is pretty wide compared to listed equities that trade hundreds of times a second, sure, but if you compare a single concert's ticket with a stock or bond that trades at a similar rate (which would be, like, the bottom end of the pink sheets) it's not so bad.

medvezhenok 5y ago

> Well, they provide value. They make it possible for people/entities who needs things the most to actually get them instead of those who happen to be first in line or in lucky position to get access to supply. True - they also take on some risk of being stuck with inventory that they can't resell at a profit (if prices drop between when they buy and sell). Ethically scalping feels wrong, but I think ethics aside, scalping does provide a service to the market.

Lev1a 5y ago
> Ethically scalping feels wrong, but I think ethics aside, scalping does provide a service to the market. Yeah fuck ethics, there's profit to be made. /s