4 ms·

its a mutually beneficial and agreed upon transaction just like walmart selling me a pen for a price i agree to buy it for. no exploitation of either party is

its a mutually beneficial and agreed upon transaction just like walmart selling me a pen for a price i agree to buy it for. no exploitation of either party is necessary

ben_w 3y ago
"Either" implies there are only two parties, the buyer of the business and the seller of the business. The third party, the public who would use the services of the business, is the one being harmed if the buyer of the business also buys all other such businesses in order to create a monopoly. This can also be done with products — not usually pens, but quite commonly with tickets for events. The buyer and the seller of the tickets can be quite happy, but the person who now owns all the tickets is free to tout them for higher prices to the detriment of the general public who would otherwise have bought them directly for less money. This is annoying enough when it's just tickets (I'm told, I never go to the kind of events that touts do this at), but we also saw it with random goods during the pandemic.
- anthonypasq 3y ago
  sorry, i automatically dont take anyone that complains about ticket prices/scalping seriously
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Why not?
TeMPOraL 3y ago
For you, it looks like a mutually beneficial transaction between you and the buyer. It is exactly that, in isolation. It screws your customers a little, but all within bounds of fair play. However, while you're playing this game only once, the buyer is playing the iterated variant: they make the same kind of deal with other people, who are just like you. The problem is: what looks like a series of independent mutually-beneficial transactions, is actually a series of correlated transactions. Each such deal makes the particular market segment worse off for both customers and individual owners like you. It's a subtle thing at first, but after enough such deals, the whole thing collapses: the remaining owners, who didn't get the deal yet (or refused), find themselves unable to compete with what's now a corporate chain of previously owner-operated businesses, and they sell out too, or just close shop. Customers end up being massively screwed. Then there are the usual secondary effects to the community fabric, that happen when mom-and-pop stores get replaced by corporate franchises. The above is the problem. Now what makes the buyers (PEs) blameworthy is that they're fully aware of how this plays out. They understand the problem described above, and they do their thing anyway, because what's a problem for you and me, means even more profit for them. The mutually beneficial transactions are a bait - the buyer seemingly leaves money on the table, but in reality, they're just ensuring they can line up enough such purchases to collapse the market segment, and mine it for all its worth.

its a mutually beneficial and agreed upon transaction just like walmart selling me a pen for a price i agree to buy it for. no exploitation of either party is necessary

ben_w 3y ago

"Either" implies there are only two parties, the buyer of the business and the seller of the business. The third party, the public who would use the services of the business, is the one being harmed if the buyer of the business also buys all other such businesses in order to create a monopoly. This can also be done with products — not usually pens, but quite commonly with tickets for events. The buyer and the seller of the tickets can be quite happy, but the person who now owns all the tickets is free to tout them for higher prices to the detriment of the general public who would otherwise have bought them directly for less money. This is annoying enough when it's just tickets (I'm told, I never go to the kind of events that touts do this at), but we also saw it with random goods during the pandemic.

anthonypasq 3y ago
sorry, i automatically dont take anyone that complains about ticket prices/scalping seriously
- ben_w 3y ago
  Why not?

TeMPOraL 3y ago

For you, it looks like a mutually beneficial transaction between you and the buyer. It is exactly that, in isolation. It screws your customers a little, but all within bounds of fair play. However, while you're playing this game only once, the buyer is playing the iterated variant: they make the same kind of deal with other people, who are just like you. The problem is: what looks like a series of independent mutually-beneficial transactions, is actually a series of correlated transactions. Each such deal makes the particular market segment worse off for both customers and individual owners like you. It's a subtle thing at first, but after enough such deals, the whole thing collapses: the remaining owners, who didn't get the deal yet (or refused), find themselves unable to compete with what's now a corporate chain of previously owner-operated businesses, and they sell out too, or just close shop. Customers end up being massively screwed. Then there are the usual secondary effects to the community fabric, that happen when mom-and-pop stores get replaced by corporate franchises. The above is the problem. Now what makes the buyers (PEs) blameworthy is that they're fully aware of how this plays out. They understand the problem described above, and they do their thing anyway, because what's a problem for you and me, means even more profit for them. The mutually beneficial transactions are a bait - the buyer seemingly leaves money on the table, but in reality, they're just ensuring they can line up enough such purchases to collapse the market segment, and mine it for all its worth.