4 ms·

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
        "Improve" how? And for whom? You have 400,000 people wanting to see a Taylor Swift concert each night in a venue that seats 80,000 (or whatever the actual numbers are). Lots of fans are going to be disappointed, shut out, denied access under any plan you implement or any laws you pass. Further, denying market forces to dictate prices results in an economic loss to Ms. Swift. You can twist "the market" all you want but you can't make everyone happy.
        blowski 4y ago
        You sound like a pagan worshipper in Ancient Greece, commenting on the sacrifices we must make for the gods on Mount Olympus. I’ll try to respond in the rigid language of the mythical Homo Economicus. If Taylor Swift could control the ticket booking process herself, she could choose which of those 400,000 fans got tickets, instead of being forced to accept those who make TicketMaster the most profits. She can go for maximum short-term financial gain for herself, or perhaps long-run profits, or even some kind of artistic consideration. This is why TicketMaster having control both over supply of venues (by virtue of its exclusivity contracts) and distribution is a problem that needs to be solved, to introduce elasticity into the market that can respond to demand.
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.

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
        "Improve" how? And for whom? You have 400,000 people wanting to see a Taylor Swift concert each night in a venue that seats 80,000 (or whatever the actual numbers are). Lots of fans are going to be disappointed, shut out, denied access under any plan you implement or any laws you pass. Further, denying market forces to dictate prices results in an economic loss to Ms. Swift. You can twist "the market" all you want but you can't make everyone happy.
        blowski 4y ago
        You sound like a pagan worshipper in Ancient Greece, commenting on the sacrifices we must make for the gods on Mount Olympus. I’ll try to respond in the rigid language of the mythical Homo Economicus. If Taylor Swift could control the ticket booking process herself, she could choose which of those 400,000 fans got tickets, instead of being forced to accept those who make TicketMaster the most profits. She can go for maximum short-term financial gain for herself, or perhaps long-run profits, or even some kind of artistic consideration. This is why TicketMaster having control both over supply of venues (by virtue of its exclusivity contracts) and distribution is a problem that needs to be solved, to introduce elasticity into the market that can respond to demand.

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.