3 ms·

The market! The market! The market! This invisible beast which controls everything for all eternity! There are always ways of influencing the market. Taxes, su

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.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        The point is that there always exists a market clearing price for everything, which can be modified temporarily via human action, but not forever.
        blowski 4y ago
        If we can improve things during that timeframe, great (perhaps phrased better as “In the long run, we’re all dead anyway”). And by the time we reach the end of that timeframe, the context will be different.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    The market for concert tickets currently starts out "influenced" by the fact that the face value (for popular acts) is well below the market-clearing price. And people hate this system, because it attracts resellers who naturally see an easy profit opportunity, these resellers aggressively obtain the majority of all tickets through a variety of back channels, leaving very few actually available to be purchased at the face value. And, because keeping face value below market-clearing price means there is more demand than supply, this system, for various reasons, led to a single company monopolizing the sale of tickets and charging massive, unavoidable fees, which people hate even more. If we actually were letting tickets be un-influenced, they would be sold via some kind of auction or like an IPO. The point is not that you can't influence the market, it's that the market is simply a natural phenomenon that will strongly resist every attempt at diminishing it with counter-effects that may be unpopular, unwanted, unfair and unintended.
- Symbiote 4y ago
  In Denmark it's illegal to resell tickets above the original price. Occasionally you see "crate of beer 1000DKK comes with free Taylor Swift ticket" but it's rare.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > In Denmark it's illegal to resell tickets above the original price. This is the foundation of the entire of retail and investment. Why should it be banned?
    - Symbiote 4y ago
      Because the positive social effect is of more value than a dogmatic belief in the market.

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.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        The point is that there always exists a market clearing price for everything, which can be modified temporarily via human action, but not forever.
        blowski 4y ago
        If we can improve things during that timeframe, great (perhaps phrased better as “In the long run, we’re all dead anyway”). And by the time we reach the end of that timeframe, the context will be different.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  The market for concert tickets currently starts out "influenced" by the fact that the face value (for popular acts) is well below the market-clearing price. And people hate this system, because it attracts resellers who naturally see an easy profit opportunity, these resellers aggressively obtain the majority of all tickets through a variety of back channels, leaving very few actually available to be purchased at the face value. And, because keeping face value below market-clearing price means there is more demand than supply, this system, for various reasons, led to a single company monopolizing the sale of tickets and charging massive, unavoidable fees, which people hate even more. If we actually were letting tickets be un-influenced, they would be sold via some kind of auction or like an IPO. The point is not that you can't influence the market, it's that the market is simply a natural phenomenon that will strongly resist every attempt at diminishing it with counter-effects that may be unpopular, unwanted, unfair and unintended.
Symbiote 4y ago
In Denmark it's illegal to resell tickets above the original price. Occasionally you see "crate of beer 1000DKK comes with free Taylor Swift ticket" but it's rare.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > In Denmark it's illegal to resell tickets above the original price. This is the foundation of the entire of retail and investment. Why should it be banned?
  - Symbiote 4y ago
    Because the positive social effect is of more value than a dogmatic belief in the market.