Monday, May 30, 2011

Two More Questions

1. If ticket scalping laws that make it illegal to sell a ticket to a concert or sporting event above face value are a good idea, shouldn't selling a coin, bond, car, or house above face value, sticker price or list price also be illegal as well?  If not, why not? 

2. Name the main arguments in favor of selling a coin, bond, car or house above face value/list price.  Aren't all of them equally good arguments for allowing people to sell tickets above face value?

51 Comments:

At 5/30/2011 9:00 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Face value is an arbitrary concept that implies that value is objective. But that is not how the real world works. In the real world value is subjective. Rules that would regulate pricing are a violation of natural law and as such need to be eliminated.

 
At 5/30/2011 9:49 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

are monopolies, hedge funds, and price fixing "natural" laws also?

why should govt intervene in the market to say... keep the electric companies from charging whatever they can get away with like we let the cable companies do....?

If an Enron-like group can corner the market on oil futures.... why should the govt mess with the private sector?

 
At 5/30/2011 10:08 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

are monopolies, hedge funds, and price fixing "natural" laws also?

Hell no. Monopolies such as the Post Office, national Telecom companies, central banks, etc., are a creation of the state and could not exist without legislative protection. They are the opposite of what you would expect in a world that respected natural law.

The same is true of the financial sector where government regulations make price manipulation possible for a time. When regulations tell managers that when they gamble and win they will become very rich and when they lose they will get bailed out there is no incentives to be prudent and the rational approach is to become a degenerate gambler.

why should govt intervene in the market to say... keep the electric companies from charging whatever they can get away with like we let the cable companies do....?

But the cable companies were protected from competition by regulations. The reason why you have abuse by utilities comes down to regulatory meddling, not free markets.

If an Enron-like group can corner the market on oil futures.... why should the govt mess with the private sector?

They can't. And you forget that Enron was using the FASB rules that allowed them to play games with their books. In the absence of the illusion of government oversight investors would have paid more attention to the organizations that were betting against Enron and telling everyone that the company was engaged in make believe accounting games.

 
At 5/30/2011 10:36 AM, Blogger Buddy R Pacifico said...

Questions 1 and 2 are about higher values. What about lower prices than face value?

My favorite scalper, outside Seattle Mariner home games, always seems to have tickets discounted 25 -> 50%. The Mariners don't like this guy.

 
At 5/30/2011 10:39 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" They can't. And you forget that Enron was using the FASB rules that allowed them to play games with their books. In the absence of the illusion of government oversight investors would have paid more attention to the organizations that were betting against Enron and telling everyone that the company was engaged in make believe accounting games."

and what eventually did Enron in?

the market or the govt?

who protects employees from having companies steal their pension contributions?

who keeps the electric company from charging you 20-25 per KWH?

are we advocating that companies who can successfully establish monopolies be not interfered with?

would we force cable and electric companies to negotiate with each private owner to build the distribution system and not have the govt take private rights away and give them to the cable and electric companies?

Roads? Should the private sector own roads and charge whatever they can charge to use them?

I'm not advocating here one direction or the other - but I am posing questions as a way to frame the issue in a wide-enough context to appreciate that a no-govt private sector world would not be all roses and light.

the simple act of driving from NY to Florida could easily cost close to what a plane ticket would if the private sector owned I-95?

 
At 5/30/2011 10:47 AM, Blogger Mace said...

"I'm not advocating here one direction or the other"

Your examples do not apply to the case of ticket scalping. The various forms of "market failure" are well known and they don't apply to everything, much to the chagrin of Leftists. Besides, your examples imply that the government will arrive at an efficient solution. Having once been a regulator myself, let me tell you "T'aint so."

 
At 5/30/2011 10:55 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

I'm not advocating here one direction or the other - but I am posing questions ...

Instead of continually posing questions, try actually reading the responses. As "Vange" has tried to point out, the monopolies and market abuses you point to were created and are perpetuated by the government.

 
At 5/30/2011 11:09 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"who protects employees from having companies steal their pension contributions?"

They need to protect themselves. In the case of Enron, they should have diversified out of the company's stock. Here's my question to you, who has protected us from the government stealing our Social Security contributions?

"who keeps the electric company from charging you 20-25 per KWH?"

In a private market with separate infrastructure and service companies competition would keep rates down. Here's my question to you, who has prevented utility companies from building new power plants needed to meet increasing demand and as a result needlessly inflicts higher energy prices on consumers?

"are we advocating that companies who can successfully establish monopolies be not interfered with?"

No. However, you have advocated for a government monopsony with regard to healthcare. Greater purchasing power I think leftists call it.

would we force cable and electric companies to negotiate with each private owner to build the distribution system ...

No. One solution wouild be to split the government created monopolies into infrastructure and service companies - letting the current companies retain ownership through stock - and allow other service providers to compete.

 
At 5/30/2011 11:49 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

there is one difference:

a ticket is a contract. it allows you to go to a certain place at a certain time and perhaps sit in a certain seat.

if the seller wants to attach conditions (even such as no resale - try reselling an airline ticket) he can do so. you then have the right not to enter into a contract with him if it upsets you.

this gets tricky and circular.

one the one hand, preventing ticket sellers from banning resale abridges their rights to enter into contracts freely.

on the other, allowing them to limit resale is, by it's nature, anti-free market.

i tend to come down on the side of allowing ticket sellers to contract as they please. not allowing resale is not really that different from say, not allowing cameras into a venue. it's just another limit stipulated in the contract formed by ticket purchase.

i find it interesting that so many people have a knee jerk reaction to limit freedom of contract in order to protect freedom of sale.

it's a bit like limiting someone's freedom to speak out against freedom of speech, no?

 
At 5/30/2011 11:52 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

well no.. I was perfectly in line with Mr. Perry's question which is why do we have an irrational and seemingly arbitrary policy with respect to the kinds of govt "intrusion" we are okay with while going after them for very similar policies?

this goes to the issue of why we end up with folks strongly advocating changes by arguing principles and then bailing on the ones they don't like.

a consistent approach would have no favorites.

 
At 5/30/2011 11:52 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

larry-

also- what do hedge funds have to do with your argument?

name one hedge fund that was bailed out with government money?

those that invest wisely prosper, those that don't fail in droves and nobody helps them.

what's more free market than that?

the only part of that world that is not free market is all of the government imposed restrictions on who may invest in them.

 
At 5/30/2011 12:01 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" a ticket is a contract. it allows you to go to a certain place at a certain time and perhaps sit in a certain seat."

very similar to a commodity contract though...right?

"if the seller wants to attach conditions (even such as no resale - try reselling an airline ticket) he can do so. you then have the right not to enter into a contract with him if it upsets you."

well.. they do re-sell airline tickets, right?

is that "scalping" if the sale price for a late ticket is higher than it's original price?

Even the airlines themselves do this.

the same exact ticket purchased one month prior can be 1/2 or 1/3 of the price of one purchased the day of the flight.

 
At 5/30/2011 12:13 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"who protects employees from having companies steal their pension contributions"...

Well it damn sure isn't the federal government Larry G...

Just look at the history of TWA...

I'm sure if one looks a little more one will find outfits like National Steel in Illinois and a few dozen more cases where the federal government didn't protect any pensions...

Don't start bragging about PBGC yet another waste of extorted tax dollars...

 
At 5/30/2011 12:18 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"very similar to a commodity contract though...right?"

this is a meaningless statement. a contract is an agreement. what that agreement contains is up to the buyer and the seller to negotiate.

this includes whatever terms the two agree upon. so long as they are clearly delineated and entered into willingly by both sides, i really don't see how you can quibble.

don't like the terms the seller offers, don't buy.

"well.. they do re-sell airline tickets, right?"

what? no. you cannot resell your airline ticket. try it. hell, 90% of tickets sold are even nonrefundable. you get a price break for buying them that way.

and no, it's not "scalping" if an airline raises prices due to demand or timing. it's market based pricing.

early on, they are unsure of demand. later, if a flight is 95% full, they are. so they can charge higher prices confident that the demand will still be there.

is it scalping to charge a high price for your house if you know it's the only one in your neighborhood for sale?

your argument doesn't make any sense.

 
At 5/30/2011 12:20 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

not bragging on it - but keeping the facts straight:

"The PBGC is not funded by general tax revenues. Its funds come from four sources:

Insurance premiums paid by sponsors of defined benefit pension plans;

Assets held by the pension plans it takes over;

Recoveries of unfunded pension liabilities from plan sponsors' bankruptcy estates;

Investment income."

works a lot like the FDIC

 
At 5/30/2011 12:24 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" "well.. they do re-sell airline tickets, right?"

what? no. you cannot resell your airline ticket."

travelocity, priceline, kayak, etc?

aren't they paying for discounted tickets and then hoping to sell them for more than they paid for them?

isn't that similar to commodity markets?

 
At 5/30/2011 12:31 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"travelocity, priceline, kayak, etc?"

uh, dude, those are not sellers, they are reservation services. they are just linked into SABRE etc.

they do not buy the tickets and sell them to you. they arrange a purchase for you with the airline.

they don't sell you a ticket anymore than opentable sells you dinner.

you seem to be under some serious misconceptions about how the airline industry works.

they are letting you bid on excess capacity, not buying tickets on spec.

trying buying an airline ticket then selling it to someone else. why do you think it has your name on it?

that's a FEDERAL LAW. you cannot use someone else's ticket.

 
At 5/30/2011 2:33 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"not bragging on it - but keeping the facts straight"...

Well Larry G if you really and truly believe what you posted maybe I can interest you in my shares of the Brooklyn Bridge...

 
At 5/30/2011 2:34 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"are we advocating that companies who can successfully establish monopolies be not interfered with?"

Here's a challenge for you, Larry: I defy you to name even one successful monopoly, past or present, that isn't or hasn't been created by government.

Monopoly must include elimination of all competition, and successful control of prices thereafter.

 
At 5/30/2011 9:06 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

""The PBGC is not funded by general tax revenues. Its funds come from four sources:"

While technically correct at this time, that could soon change:

See here...

...and here

The PBGC has operated at a loss for all but 6 of the last 37 years. You are smart to not brag about it.

This, from the CFO magazine article:

"The 29-page report by the Center on Federal Financial Institutions said the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) "is insolvent on the basis of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and would be shut down if it were a private insurer."

Is this yet another failing government enterprise?

What will happen when the PBGC runs out of funds? If you recommend "just increase premiums", keep in mind that every dollar a company spends on insurance premiums, is one dollar less it can contribute to it's pension fund. When do diminishing returns make this a bad idea?

 
At 5/30/2011 9:28 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

and what eventually did Enron in?

the market or the govt?


It was the market. The government tried to pass legislation that would have allowed Enron to make a fortune from carbon trading but the markets would have none of it. As Enron's schemes fell apart and it started to lose in other areas of its business the game was over. Jim Chanos smelled out the problem months before the fall yet the government did nothing about it. (Same as the Madoff fiasco.)

who protects employees from having companies steal their pension contributions?

Certainly not the government. It just stole money out of its own employees' plan.

who keeps the electric company from charging you 20-25 per KWH?

Who allows the electric company a monopoly position in the first place?

are we advocating that companies who can successfully establish monopolies be not interfered with?

Yes. That is preferable to granting monopolies to ineffective companies like the Post Office or AT&T. Which companies established monopolies in a competitive environment again? And what harm did they do to consumers?

Until you can answer that question you have no argument regarding monopoly.

 
At 5/31/2011 2:00 AM, Blogger Russ Nelson said...

Larry G -- admit it! You're actually muirgeo, aren't you?

 
At 5/31/2011 5:19 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Don't start bragging about PBGC yet another waste of extorted tax dollars."

" not bragging on it - but keeping the facts straight:

"The PBGC is not funded by general tax revenues. Its funds come from four sources:"

" who protects employees from having companies steal their pension contributions?

Certainly not the government. It just stole money out of its own employees' plan. "

" ""The PBGC is not funded by general tax revenues. Its funds come from four sources:"

While technically correct at this time, that could soon change:"

the above is an example of the mindless blather than occurs here.

The FACTS ARE that PBGC WAS CREATED BY THE GOVERNMENT to help pensioners whose pension plans they paid into were being taken by companies.

WITHOUT the GOVT, more people would lose their pensions to the unscrupulous activities of those who would steal from others.

The Govt DID set up PBGC and it was DESIGNED similar to the FDIC to be funded much like insurance but mandatory insurance.

The answer to higher losses of pension plans would be to increase the premiums like they do with FDIC or to supplement with taxes or to close PBGC down and tell those with pension plans that they are once again on their own.

 
At 5/31/2011 5:23 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" uh, dude, those are not sellers, they are reservation services. they are just linked into SABRE etc.

they do not buy the tickets and sell them to you. they arrange a purchase for you with the airline."

at different prices....

right?

you can shop at the different sites at the same time and receive different prices - even different prices that the airline reservation system itself.

that implies there is something more going on than just an airline reservation system, no?

 
At 5/31/2011 8:33 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

larry-

it just means that the reservation companies have different deals with the airlines.

it does not mean they buy tickets and resell them.

your logic here is becoming increasingly tortured and strained.

you cannot buy and resell airline tickets. they are only issued with a traveler's name on them. that is a federal law.

ps.

i just checked priceline and travelocity for a flight and the prices are EXACTLY the same.

perhaps you will see occasional differences, but that says nothing about whether or not they resell tickets.

read the terms online larry.

when you buy an airline ticket, you cannot resell it. in most cases, you cannot even cancel it.

think about it.

if you could resell airline tickets, you'd see them on ebay. hell, there'd be a whole website dedicated to it.

prices for tickets tend to rise as you approach the flight. so, if you had bought a ticket and were not going to go, you'd be able to sell it at a profit, but still for less than the airline was charging.

such a transaction would be appealing to both buyer and seller.

the fact that you never see it tells you everything you need to know there.

priceline is a public company. why don't you show me ANYWHERE on their balance sheet where they hold ticket inventory.

you can't, because they don't.

seriously, there is not a shred of evidence to support your repeated claims.

i have no idea where you are getting these absurd ideas or if they are just a smoke screen to get away from your silly arguments about contracts and scalping.

either come back with some concrete evidence of airline ticket resale or give it up man, you are demonstrating nothing apart from your dogmatic refusal to learn.

 
At 5/31/2011 8:51 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

i tend to come down on the side of allowing ticket sellers to contract as they please. not allowing resale is not really that different from say, not allowing cameras into a venue. it's just another limit stipulated in the contract formed by ticket purchase.

OK, I am willing to play this game and go along with your logic. Say we have a contract between the two of us and I violate that contract. Does that give you the right to go out and serve me a notice of violation and take me to court? Yet, it does. But it does not give you the right to have the taxpayer foot the bill by sending the police after me because what I did was not a criminal act.

In this case we do not have the sports teams and concert promoters going out and using private goons to try to enforce the contracts. We have the police. How do you justify that?

 
At 5/31/2011 8:54 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

this goes to the issue of why we end up with folks strongly advocating changes by arguing principles and then bailing on the ones they don't like.

Who is doing that exactly? What principles are being violated?

 
At 5/31/2011 8:59 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

The PBGC is not funded by general tax revenues....

Actually, if we use GAAP principles the PBGC is insolvent. Without injections from the taxpayer it cannot survive. Try doing some basic research.

 
At 5/31/2011 9:01 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

you seem to be under some serious misconceptions about how the airline industry works.

No surprise there. He also has trouble understanding how the insurance industry works.

 
At 5/31/2011 10:20 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

v-

your argument does not seem to make any sense.

what does criminal prosecution have to do with anything?

if we have a contract and you break it, i take you to civil court.

if you broke a criminal law (like reselling an airline ticket) you may see the police, but i fail to see where you are going with this.

what is this "private goon" issue you are raising?

debt collection? why can't i hire a debt collector? or security for my event?

i'm surprised to see you coming down on the side of limiting freedom to contract and governmental restrictions on the terms of private transactions.

i bought a cat from a breeder. he came with a no resale/breeder has right of first refusal if i don't want to keep him clause.

i knew that going in. if i cared (and i didn't) i could have gone to another breeder or perhaps paid more for a different contract.

it was a transaction between 2 consenting adults.

why would you seek to invite governmental restrictions on such?

once you open that door, it never stops.

think about it.

protecting the freedom to transact by limiting freedom to transact is not viable.

 
At 5/31/2011 10:49 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

your argument does not seem to make any sense.

Yes it does. When there is a dispute about contracts we do not use the criminal system and the police are not involved. The party harmed spends money to get the other party in court. It does not use the police force to charge that party.

If the ticket sellers have a problem with scalpers they should spend their own money to serve notice and take them to court. Why should the taxpayers be involved in the conflict and pay for the expenses of one of the parties involved?

i'm surprised to see you coming down on the side of limiting freedom to contract and governmental restrictions on the terms of private transactions.

I am not. I said that the ticket sellers should take the scalpers to court. What I object to is using the state police to take sides in any dispute. What is in the private contracts is a matter for the private parties to settle.

Try reading my response more carefully.

 
At 5/31/2011 11:16 AM, Blogger Eric H said...

"Aren't all of them equally good arguments for allowing people to sell tickets above face value?"

Well, I'm thinking "not all of them", at least in terms of intrinsic or melt value. A pre-1982 penny is worth 3 cents in its copper content today. A pre-1964 quarter is worth about $7 in silver content.

 
At 5/31/2011 11:38 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

here's a useful example to consider:

if i buy a projector for my home theater, i get a manufacturer warranty.

if, before the wty expires, i sell the projector to you, you get the projector, but the warranty does not transfer.

if it did, it would have cost more.

the manufacturer does not want to guarantee a product that i may have mistreated.

if you forced the warranty to be transferable, then it would cost more or would not be offered at all.

in this way, freedom of contract benefits consumers. imposing a limitation on having a non-transferable warranty would harm those users who did not want to resell for the benefit of a few who might.

why is that desirable?

you would force many to overpay for features they do not want.

why make every airline ticket buyer buy a refundable/tradable ticket when most are not interesting in paying for those features?

 
At 5/31/2011 11:56 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"Why should the taxpayers be involved in the conflict and pay for the expenses of one of the parties involved?"

ahh, you did not make that clear. i agree that police should not be used to settle civil issues (though consider a sheriff and an eviction, or police at the scene of a traffic accident and you'll see that it's hardly a unique problem)

however, this says nothing at all about the original issue. misappropriation of resources shines no light onto the desirability of free contract, merely the manner of the enforcement of the law.

if that was your whole point, then it is essentially a non sequitor.

your point is completely orthogonal to the ideas i was discussing.

 
At 5/31/2011 12:48 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Eric H. says...

"Aren't all of them equally good arguments for allowing people to sell tickets above face value?"

"Well, I'm thinking "not all of them", at least in terms of intrinsic or melt value. A pre-1982 penny is worth 3 cents in its copper content today. A pre-1964 quarter is worth about $7 in silver content.
"

Actually you're making a good argument against inflating the money supply, thus forcing the face value of coins below the value of their metal content.

If I can collect enough copper or silver coins to make it worth while to melt them for the metal value, I should thank the mint for the free gift.

 
At 5/31/2011 12:59 PM, Blogger James said...

Logic Not to be Applied Here

Government price controls are driven by politics and not economics or logic. You will get nowhere trying to apply logic to price controls. . The questions to be asked of backers is not why this or that party benefit from them and others do not but rather what political considerations went into creating them and who can we vote out of office to get rid of them.

 
At 5/31/2011 1:41 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Larry G. sez...

"When I look around at the world, I see that it is cold and uncaring, and although I am extremely smart, and see everything clearley, most people are NOT, and, in fact, are unable to care for themselves.

Therefore, we have a GOOD and WISE government to take care of us, and tell us how to manage our lives. Without that, we would be unable to obtain medical treatment for ourselves, or plan for our elder years.

There are countless government programs to provide for us, as private markets couldn't and wouldn't do it. It's not important that I explain how they will be paid for in the future, our wise leaders will figure something out.

I'm upset with all you right-wing blather-butts at this site, who try to disparage those WISE and GOOD government programs, by telling lies about their financial viability. I don't understand why you are so MEAN.

There is nothing anyone can say that will change my mind in the slightest, because I already know thr TRUTH. I KNOW, because I have THE FACTS!!

 
At 5/31/2011 1:45 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Government price controls are driven by politics and not economics or logic. You will get nowhere trying to apply logic to price controls."

Wow! You've got that right. are you the same James that constantly calls for government price controls in the form of tariffs?

 
At 5/31/2011 1:59 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" 'm upset with all you right-wing blather-butts at this site, who try to disparage those WISE and GOOD government programs, by telling lies about their financial viability. I don't understand why you are so MEAN. "

ha ha ha..you guys are a RIOT!

"wise and good" is in the mind of the beholder, eh?

and if you have a one-man, one-vote governance.. you entitled to one butt just like everyone else...
eh?

and we decide - as a voting electorate what we think collectively is "wise and good".

and some of you.. well..you do object.. vociferously.. with great zealotry..

and then we make you go back to your caves...

til next time...eh?

 
At 5/31/2011 2:36 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

however, this says nothing at all about the original issue. misappropriation of resources shines no light onto the desirability of free contract, merely the manner of the enforcement of the law.

if that was your whole point, then it is essentially a non sequitor.

your point is completely orthogonal to the ideas i was discussing.


My point is that there should not be any anti-scalping laws because the government has no business intervening in private contracts. Many of the tickets that are being resold do not have explicit prohibitions against resale yet the government still considers it illegal if they are resold. Why should anyone who respects freedom accept that?

When the face value of the tickets is lower than the market clearing price scalpers take advantage of the arbitrage opportunities. Because more people are willing to buy at the lower price than there are seats the price must go up to clear the imbalance. As prices go up demand drops and the number of seats matches up with the number of people who want to see the event. When the mismatch is huge scalpers ensure that those that want to see the even most get to see it. If I want to pay $130 to see Leonard Cohen but you are willing to pay $300 why should I get to see him just because I win some lottery? It is better to have a mechanism by which those that want it the most and can afford to pay get to see the show.

And let me note that the promoters and sports clubs have seen the light and are now offering tickets based on demand. While still not as efficient as scalpers it is still a step forward.

 
At 5/31/2011 3:07 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"and we decide - as a voting electorate what we think collectively is "wise and good""...

Well your collectivist thinking got you and us Obama, you want to brag about that?!?!

 
At 5/31/2011 4:20 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Well your collectivist thinking got you and us Obama, you want to brag about that?!?! "

well.. dude.. it's the way the country works...

it's the same one that brought us the Bush and Reagan idiots.

is that "inconvenient" for you?

would you rather have a "ruler"?

your "ideas" in this kind of governance are worth warm spit if you can't convince enough of those other "collectivist thinking" folks of the correctness of your arguments.

 
At 5/31/2011 5:54 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Well your collectivist thinking got you and us Obama, you want to brag about that?!?!"

Well, juandos, it may not be only collectivist thinking, but the eagerness to drink the hopeychangey koolaid.

Come to think of it, those often go hand in hand.

Brian Caplan has some interesting perspectives on this.

 
At 5/31/2011 5:58 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

have you seen this guys picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan

LORD...he should sue his parents!

" In April 2010, he caused controversy with a blog post that argued that women were more free in the 1880s than they are in the 21st century.[9] This post led Bradford DeLong to call Caplan "the stupidest man alive".[10]"

yep.. he sounds like one of you.

:-)

 
At 5/31/2011 7:22 PM, Blogger Alejandro said...

I have no issue with open secondary markets in which contracts are always settled. It is your own business if you pay more than 4,000 Euros a ticket to watch the Barcelona-Manchester United Champions final game.

I do have an issue when people inside venues or other sellers collude with criminal organizations which use scalpers to resell the tickets and pocket the bulk of the gains. I also have an issue when scalpers sell fake tickets. Legalization per se don't address any of these facts.

 
At 5/31/2011 7:31 PM, Blogger Alejandro said...

I have no isse with open secondary markets in which transactions are always settled.

I do have an issue when criminal organizations collude with people at the venues to get tickets. I do have an issue when scalpers sell fake tickets. None of these two facts are addressed by the plain legalization of scalpers activities.

 
At 5/31/2011 9:54 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"have you seen this guys picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan

LORD...he should sue his parents!
"

You're criticizing his appearance? That's lame even for you.

What about his blog post? Did you read it?

Are you familiar with Brad DeLong? Is his a judgment you would trust without corroboration? You did say you didn't rely on any one source, but required several.

Have you read anything by Brian Caplan, so that you could have your own informed opinion?

I suspect you are relying on a superficial assessment based on Wikipedia.

You need to do better than this, Lame Larry.

 
At 5/31/2011 9:57 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I also have an issue when scalpers sell fake tickets"

Those aren't scalpers, they're crooks. Big difference. Fraud is never OK.

 
At 5/31/2011 10:41 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

"have you seen this guys picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Caplan

LORD...he should sue his parents!"

You're criticizing his appearance? That's lame even for you.

What about his blog post? Did you read it?

Are you familiar with Brad DeLong? Is his a judgment you would trust without corroboration? You did say you didn't rely on any one source, but required several.

Have you read anything by Brian Caplan, so that you could have your own informed opinion?

I suspect you are relying on a superficial assessment based on Wikipedia.

You need to do better than this, Lame Larry. "

GAWD.. the guy is butt ugly..

the comment about women being better off in the 18th century is not a good sign...

 
At 6/03/2011 2:17 PM, Blogger A Thinker's Thoughts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 6/03/2011 2:48 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

No it's not. Face value is face value; a bond literally has a "face" that has a dollar-amount printed on it. Selling that bond with a premium is selling it above "face value."

But the printed ticket price it is arbitrary while value is subjective. If I value the ticket more than you paid for it there is nothing wrong with me offering that price to you.

Regardless of whether I agree with your point or not (and I do), 'natural law' has nothing to do with your argument and even less to do with economics.

Of course it does. Natural law is always in play and when governments or institutions violate its rules someone always steps in to set things right. In this case it is our hero, the friendly neighbourhood ticket scalper.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home