scalpers and market efficiency

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
     

Originally posted by sweetcell:
  furthermore, i'll add that fans should have the ability to benefits from those prices without having leeches cut in front of the line and mark up those tickets.
 

You are now arguing against free market economics.  If the seller has made a conscious decision to sell below market price, then there is nothing wrong with arbitrageurs coming in and profiting on this inefficiency. [/b]

not quite: i'm arguing that artists/promoters have the right to limit arbitrage, and wish more was done to limit it.  
 
 you wrote "there is nothing wrong with arbitrageurs coming in and profiting on this inefficiency" - define "wrong".  illegal?  no, for the most part.  undesirable?  against wishes of those offering the product?  subject to having the activity curtailed to for public benefit? yes.  just because there is a free-market explanation for something doesn't make it "good" in my books.

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by manimtired:
  do you guys really get screwed over/out on tix so much that you think about this so much?

coming up with an opinion about something you're passionate about (in this case, live music) isn't that hard.  
 
 the ability to defend that opinion... priceless.

[ggw]

Originally posted by sweetcell:
   

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
     

Originally posted by sweetcell:
  furthermore, i'll add that fans should have the ability to benefits from those prices without having leeches cut in front of the line and mark up those tickets.
 

You are now arguing against free market economics.  If the seller has made a conscious decision to sell below market price, then there is nothing wrong with arbitrageurs coming in and profiting on this inefficiency. [/b]

not quite: i'm arguing that artists/promoters have the right to limit arbitrage, and wish more was done to limit it.  
 
 you wrote "there is nothing wrong with arbitrageurs coming in and profiting on this inefficiency" - define "wrong".  illegal?  no, for the most part.  undesirable?  against wishes of those offering the product?  subject to having the activity curtailed to for public benefit? yes. [/b]

You are further arguing against economic liberalism now by introducing the idea of some regulator coming in to police the process.
 
 You're some sort of commie, ain't you....?

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 You are further arguing against economic liberalism now by introducing the idea of some regulator coming in to police the process.

you don't need a regulator for everything.  you can set up rules that require no government intervention.  extreme example: will-call only, name on order must pick-up showing original credti card, must enter venue upon receiving ticket.  don't see any regulators, government or otherwise, involved.  was that anti-free market?  or does free-market = capitalist anarchy, where no rules are good rules?  again, i'm just saying that limits can (and should) be set.
 
   

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
 You're some sort of canadian, ain't you....?

corrected        
 
 i find it surprising how blindly some people kowtow to supply and demand.

[ggw]

The government is not the only regulator.  Even self-regulation is still regulation.
 
 And you've done a bit of a 180 on the supply-demand issue.  Originally, you appeared to support the idea that ticket prices should be set at equilibrium levels to eliminate scalping.  Now you are saying you don't "kowtow to supply and demand," but instead want some form of regulation.

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  The government is not the only regulator.  Even self-regulation is still regulation.

uh, sure... but i'm not seeing your point.  are you saying that regulation of any form is undesirable?
 
 

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  And you've done a bit of a 180 on the supply-demand issue.  Originally, you appeared to support the idea that ticket prices should be set at equilibrium levels to eliminate scalping.  Now you are saying you don't "kowtow to supply and demand," but instead want some form of regulation.

it's called a hierarchy of preferences: current scalper free-for-all < scalper's money going to artists <<< mechanisms that allow artists to sell to fans at their set price without interference and false demand.  no 180's involved.

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

Originally posted by sweetcell:
  coming up with an opinion about something you're passionate about (in this case, live music) isn't that hard.  
 
 the ability to defend that opinion... priceless.

But this thread has almost nothing to do with live music, and everything to do with an excruciatingly boring discussion of economic cliches.  Just saying.  

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
   

Originally posted by sweetcell:
  coming up with an opinion about something you're passionate about (in this case, live music) isn't that hard.  
 
 the ability to defend that opinion... priceless.

But this thread has almost nothing to do with live music, and everything to do with an excruciatingly boring discussion of economic cliches.  Just saying.      [/b]

why are you up at 5:12am

[6949]

Originally posted by le sonick:
  you really think Jay-Z is charging $100 a ticket cause he doesnt like scalpers??
 
 please.

Of courses he likes scalpers. Don't forget he is a hustler homey, you a customer crony.

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

Originally posted by le sonick:
  why are you up at 5:12am

Jet lag!

[TheDirector217]

Originally posted by 6949:
   

Originally posted by le sonick:
  you really think Jay-Z is charging $100 a ticket cause he doesnt like scalpers??
 
 please.

Of courses he likes scalpers. Don't forget he is a hustler homey, you a customer crony. [/b]

Post of the week frontrunner.
 
 I must say you've been on fire lately, 69 . . .

[6949]

Originally posted by TheDirector217:
   

Originally posted by 6949:
   

Originally posted by le sonick:
  you really think Jay-Z is charging $100 a ticket cause he doesnt like scalpers??
 
 please.

Of courses he likes scalpers. Don't forget he is a hustler homey, you a customer crony. [/b]

Post of the week frontrunner.
 
 I must say you've been on fire lately, 69 . . . [/b]

Thanks, but I'm going to top that post right now...
 
 I've only paid a scalper once over the cost of the actual ticket.  It was for Daughtry at the 930 club. I paid double.

[Brian_Wallace]

Originally posted by 6949:
  Thanks, but I'm going to top that post right now...
 
 I've only paid a scalper once over the cost of the actual ticket.  It was for Daughtry at the 930 club. I paid double.

Ah, that's so sad.  No wonder you're moving to the left coast.
 
 Brian

[Cali]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  No.  That was my point in the original thread.  If artists raise the original price to match the scalper's price, then you have 100% of the people paying the scalper's prices 100% of the time rather than the small group of people who pay them now.  That's not an economic argument, that's just an observation.

the scalpers would just increase their prices

[Bags]

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Economic liberalism would argue against government interference in setting prices, but would not necessarily be against one of the participants (i.e., artists) freely selling at levels below fair market prices.  
 
 So, if the artists and producers are the ones getting screwed by scalpers, why haven't they all raised their prices to equilibrium levels?

RE: Sweetcell's initial premise.  In true free markets, not all products are (or need be) priced the same.  There should be spikes in times of extreme shortage or scarcity, but that does not mean you raise ALL prices to dampen occasional peaks.  Raising general market prices is intended to decrease demand.  For instance, would it be worthwhile to raise electricity prices by 500% because there are 10 hours during the summer in which power prices spike up to $5000/hour?  Nope, doesn't make sense.  The $5000/hour is the price mitigator there -- industrials will go offline in order to 'make' $5000/hour rather than pay $5000/hour.
 
 There's a difference for concert tickets; folks who have to pay scalpers must do so because they were not first responders to the ticket sale.  Or, are willing to pay a premium to have someone else do the work of getting a prime seat.
 
 Granted, some shows sell out incredibly fast and even if you're there at your computer at 10:00 a.m., you can miss out.  Perhaps higher prices overall would dampen that (have to say, you could get good Police tickets at Verizon for several hours -- I think that was about pricing).
 
 But for a general admission show, it would be of little help against scalpers to raise all prices.  'Cuz there will still be those folks who missed the sale, found out about the show late, etc.