4 ms·

So you extrapolate from one HN comment to all libertarians? You are interpreting the original comment as uncharitably as possible. "Additional Woodstocks" can

So you extrapolate from one HN comment to all libertarians? You are interpreting the original comment as uncharitably as possible. "Additional Woodstocks" can be easily interpreted as "additional concerts similar to Woodstock" without changing the meaning of the comment. Also, you don't need unlimited resources to create new concerts, and you don't need the "snap of a finger", you simply need people who are motivated to do so by virtue of the profit motive (as well as their love for music and live shows) incentivized through the price mechanism.

dmitriid 5y ago
> So you extrapolate from one HN comment to all libertarians? Yes. Because all of their notions of "one true free market" require unlimited resources and ability to immediately create anything from scratch. > can be easily interpreted as "additional concerts similar to Woodstock" Same thing, different attempt to argue semantics. > Also, you don't need unlimited resources to create new concerts, and you don't need the "snap of a finger", you simply need people who are motivated to do so by virtue of the profit motive I'll repeat this again for the fourth-fifth time in this thread. Literally thousands of concerts exist, "simply" driven by "people who are motivated to do so by virtue of the profit motive". And yet, Woodstock is Woodstock. And Sziget is Sziget etc. I wonder why.
- jcbrand 5y ago
  The existence of the Ford fiesta model won't necessarily make a Lamborghini cheaper, but it does make the category "car" more affordable and provides an option for people on a budget. The same applies to concerts. Woodstock, due to various factors is able to charge a premium, but that doesn't mean you can't go to other concerts. As more and more concerts are held, the premium that Woodstock can command is held in check, because people have other options.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > The same applies to concerts. The analogy is incorrect when what was claimed was: "So if the free-market price of the ticket is higher than the sales price, people should be producing additional Woodstocks until the prices match" > As more and more concerts are held, the premium that Woodstock can command is held in check, because people have other options. - 6-day festival pass to Sziget is 315 EUR (~$346). - Glastonbury (5 days) tickets are ~$365. So, in check, according to you. And then... - Coachella $449 and up - Burning Man (which is not even a concert per se) is $525 and up (some tickets are sold at $2500) And then... - Justin Bieber can easily ask for 1000 dollars per ticket and more. And so on. Even though, according to you and @FeepingCreature, it's enough to just create another Sziget/Glastonbury/Coachella/Bieber for the prices to go down to an equilibrium. Oh and there will be no scalpers. Even though already, now, no one is stopping you from creating thousands of concerts.... and yet the price for those discussed doesn't go down, and scalpers exist. Same for any sporting events etc.

dmitriid 5y ago

> So you extrapolate from one HN comment to all libertarians? Yes. Because all of their notions of "one true free market" require unlimited resources and ability to immediately create anything from scratch. > can be easily interpreted as "additional concerts similar to Woodstock" Same thing, different attempt to argue semantics. > Also, you don't need unlimited resources to create new concerts, and you don't need the "snap of a finger", you simply need people who are motivated to do so by virtue of the profit motive I'll repeat this again for the fourth-fifth time in this thread. Literally thousands of concerts exist, "simply" driven by "people who are motivated to do so by virtue of the profit motive". And yet, Woodstock is Woodstock. And Sziget is Sziget etc. I wonder why.

jcbrand 5y ago
The existence of the Ford fiesta model won't necessarily make a Lamborghini cheaper, but it does make the category "car" more affordable and provides an option for people on a budget. The same applies to concerts. Woodstock, due to various factors is able to charge a premium, but that doesn't mean you can't go to other concerts. As more and more concerts are held, the premium that Woodstock can command is held in check, because people have other options.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > The same applies to concerts. The analogy is incorrect when what was claimed was: "So if the free-market price of the ticket is higher than the sales price, people should be producing additional Woodstocks until the prices match" > As more and more concerts are held, the premium that Woodstock can command is held in check, because people have other options. - 6-day festival pass to Sziget is 315 EUR (~$346). - Glastonbury (5 days) tickets are ~$365. So, in check, according to you. And then... - Coachella $449 and up - Burning Man (which is not even a concert per se) is $525 and up (some tickets are sold at $2500) And then... - Justin Bieber can easily ask for 1000 dollars per ticket and more. And so on. Even though, according to you and @FeepingCreature, it's enough to just create another Sziget/Glastonbury/Coachella/Bieber for the prices to go down to an equilibrium. Oh and there will be no scalpers. Even though already, now, no one is stopping you from creating thousands of concerts.... and yet the price for those discussed doesn't go down, and scalpers exist. Same for any sporting events etc.