3 ms·

> But a lot of artists want to sell tickets below market price And I want to experience being a dragon, unicorn, billionaire, etc. We can want impossible thin

> But a lot of artists want to sell tickets below market price And I want to experience being a dragon, unicorn, billionaire, etc. We can want impossible things, but ignore reality at our own peril. You can't "beat" the market, you just force the market underground (black market, scalpers). The market ALWAYS pays what it can afford. If demand is greater than supply, and someone is willing to pay more for it, refer to Economics 101.

blowski 4y ago
The market! The market! The market! This invisible beast which controls everything for all eternity! There are always ways of influencing the market. Taxes, subsidies, regulations, advertising. It requires imagination, but let's not feel ourselves enslaved completely to the invisible hand of the new leviathan.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  "Influencing the market" is just a way of introducing unenforcable or ineffective rules, or unintended consequences. You want to tax resale of tickets at above face value at 100%? Sure. Now enforce it. I mean, it's been illegal in many states for a while now anyway. Back in the day, before the web, anyone who wanted a ticket at face value could get one. You just had to wait in line. For a long time. And back then, people said that system was unfair, because wealthy people could afford to take the day off of work, while poor people couldn't. Or wealthy people could simply pay other people to wait in line for them. And the wealthy people realized, hey, the limit is 8 tickets but I'm going with just a group of 4... I can buy all 8 and sell 4 to people at the end of the line for a profit. And they did! And so waiting in line became fruitless, unless you were really, really, really early, because all the wealthy people (scalpers) would buy the max number of tickets and the show would sell out fast. Now we have the internet and nobody has to wait on a line, everyone can log in at the exact moment, but people once again say this is unfair. The idea that you can somehow ignore, heavily influence, or override the free market in concert tickets is nonsensical.
  - blowski 4y ago
    So we can influence the market for travel, healthcare, education, military, environment, food, children’s toys, etc. But not for tickets to watch Taylor Swift?
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      Seems a bit of a weird question. Considering how often it's discussed on HN what the unintended effects are of regulations on healthcare, education, and environment. I would wager more than 5% of posts that got more than 100 comments in the last 5 years have discussions about that topic.
      - blowski 4y ago
        There are three categories of criticism being mixed up here. 1. You cannot influence the market, it will always revert to form. 2. You can influence the market, but in doing so, you will cause too many damaging side-effects. 3. You should not influence the market, because it’s morally wrong to do so. The first comment was very much in category 1, but now it sounds like category 2. The problem with category 2 arguments is that they pretend any solution must be perfect with no side-effects or we shouldn’t do it. Clearly, it’s a trade-off - even if there are negatives, if they are outweighed by the positives, it’s worth doing. Thus, if it’s possible some mixture of regulation, tax and subsidy can prevent monopolistic behaviour, it’s worth at least discussing.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Well 2. is only a subset of 1., on a long enough time scale, as all human 'influences' will vanish too. Animals, even plants, experience market forces to some extent. So I would say 'You cannot influence the market over millions of years, it will always revert to form.'
        blowski 4y ago
        Within the next million years, I predict we’ll find different solutions. For now, I’ll focus on the next few decades.

blowski 4y ago

The market! The market! The market! This invisible beast which controls everything for all eternity! There are always ways of influencing the market. Taxes, subsidies, regulations, advertising. It requires imagination, but let's not feel ourselves enslaved completely to the invisible hand of the new leviathan.

listenallyall 4y ago
"Influencing the market" is just a way of introducing unenforcable or ineffective rules, or unintended consequences. You want to tax resale of tickets at above face value at 100%? Sure. Now enforce it. I mean, it's been illegal in many states for a while now anyway. Back in the day, before the web, anyone who wanted a ticket at face value could get one. You just had to wait in line. For a long time. And back then, people said that system was unfair, because wealthy people could afford to take the day off of work, while poor people couldn't. Or wealthy people could simply pay other people to wait in line for them. And the wealthy people realized, hey, the limit is 8 tickets but I'm going with just a group of 4... I can buy all 8 and sell 4 to people at the end of the line for a profit. And they did! And so waiting in line became fruitless, unless you were really, really, really early, because all the wealthy people (scalpers) would buy the max number of tickets and the show would sell out fast. Now we have the internet and nobody has to wait on a line, everyone can log in at the exact moment, but people once again say this is unfair. The idea that you can somehow ignore, heavily influence, or override the free market in concert tickets is nonsensical.
- blowski 4y ago
  So we can influence the market for travel, healthcare, education, military, environment, food, children’s toys, etc. But not for tickets to watch Taylor Swift?
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Seems a bit of a weird question. Considering how often it's discussed on HN what the unintended effects are of regulations on healthcare, education, and environment. I would wager more than 5% of posts that got more than 100 comments in the last 5 years have discussions about that topic.
    - blowski 4y ago
      There are three categories of criticism being mixed up here. 1. You cannot influence the market, it will always revert to form. 2. You can influence the market, but in doing so, you will cause too many damaging side-effects. 3. You should not influence the market, because it’s morally wrong to do so. The first comment was very much in category 1, but now it sounds like category 2. The problem with category 2 arguments is that they pretend any solution must be perfect with no side-effects or we shouldn’t do it. Clearly, it’s a trade-off - even if there are negatives, if they are outweighed by the positives, it’s worth doing. Thus, if it’s possible some mixture of regulation, tax and subsidy can prevent monopolistic behaviour, it’s worth at least discussing.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Well 2. is only a subset of 1., on a long enough time scale, as all human 'influences' will vanish too. Animals, even plants, experience market forces to some extent. So I would say 'You cannot influence the market over millions of years, it will always revert to form.'
        blowski 4y ago
        Within the next million years, I predict we’ll find different solutions. For now, I’ll focus on the next few decades.