4 ms·

> If people value an item more than those who bought it, they are perfectly entitled to indicate that they would be willing to pay more on a secondary market, a

> If people value an item more than those who bought it, they are perfectly entitled to indicate that they would be willing to pay more on a secondary market, and see if there are any takers. By which point the item may have already been consumed (if not a durable good) or whoever bought it at the discounted price may not be willing to sell at any reasonable price. At least if scalpers get the item you know that they have little incentive to keep it for themselves.

notahacker 5y ago
> ...whoever bought it at the discounted price may not be willing to sell at any reasonable price. At least if scalpers get the item you know that they have little incentive to keep it for themselves. If they're more interested in keeping it for themselves than selling it at a price the prospective buyer is willing to pay, then obviously that's not a problem. They don't value it as much as it's actually worth to the current owners, ergo no more efficient market allocation is possible. It's a weird, cargo cultish notion of markets where asking prices are only "reasonable" if the only value an item has to its owner is how much they think they can gouge others for, and people refusing to sell items at a price because they have more incentive to keep it for themselves is seen as a problem! The actual deadweight losses are incurred when the opposite takes place: scalpers don't enjoy the stock but do restrict others from enjoying it. The only situation in which scalpers actually help you buy something you couldn't otherwise have made an acceptable offer for is if lots of people value something at more they can actually afford, and scalpers inserting themselves in the middle prevents them from getting their hands on it at a price they could afford. But that shift in allocation isn't pro-market, it's anti poor. Otherwise, if you can't buy it, that's because you're the one that's not willing or able to pay what it's actually worth

notahacker 5y ago

> ...whoever bought it at the discounted price may not be willing to sell at any reasonable price. At least if scalpers get the item you know that they have little incentive to keep it for themselves. If they're more interested in keeping it for themselves than selling it at a price the prospective buyer is willing to pay, then obviously that's not a problem. They don't value it as much as it's actually worth to the current owners, ergo no more efficient market allocation is possible. It's a weird, cargo cultish notion of markets where asking prices are only "reasonable" if the only value an item has to its owner is how much they think they can gouge others for, and people refusing to sell items at a price because they have more incentive to keep it for themselves is seen as a problem! The actual deadweight losses are incurred when the opposite takes place: scalpers don't enjoy the stock but do restrict others from enjoying it. The only situation in which scalpers actually help you buy something you couldn't otherwise have made an acceptable offer for is if lots of people value something at more they can actually afford, and scalpers inserting themselves in the middle prevents them from getting their hands on it at a price they could afford. But that shift in allocation isn't pro-market, it's anti poor. Otherwise, if you can't buy it, that's because you're the one that's not willing or able to pay what it's actually worth