Once upon a time artists like Bruce Springsteen decided to keep their concert ticket prices low enough so their working-class fans would be able to see them. Springsteen tickets became among the most scalped tickets, because they could be purchased for a low cost and sold for what the market would bear, which ended up being hundreds of dollars because demand was high.
With the migration of the ticket market online, it became clear to the ticket / venue monopolies that this secondary market was extremely profitable, so they created "separate" companies to re-sell their own tickets and effectively become their own scalpers. The artists charging below-market were left with a low profit margin, the fans still had to pay top dollar to see them, and the ticket companies made unprecedented profits by rent-seeking on their own transactions through shell companies.
The ticket brokers are often intertwined with the event promoters who book--and therefore negotiate the comp for--the acts, who are aware of how the game is played and are reportedly making sure to get their cut. The shell game is more about shielding the talent from the fan ire that would follow if they simply charged a market-clearing price from the get go.
I know you're right. Which is why it's so odd that I also know you're wrong.
Maybe the cognitive dissonance comes from conflating this with something related but distinct: the allocation of essential resources whose quantity is insufficient. Let's say there is only one doctor in a hurricane-stricken neighborhood with dozens of people in need of care. More doctors will arrive eventually, but a lot of the victims can't wait that long. How should we decide who to treat first? Should we open it to bidding? This is not the same situation as toilet paper, where the resource is not as essential and market pricing could expand supply. Nevertheless, I feel like my reaction to the toilet paper question is really coming from my reaction to the doctor question.
On a related note: we should relax medical licensure or at least indemnify medical practitioners in such cases. Allow nurses to do things that otherwise would require MD supervision. We should probably do more of this kind of thing in general m, but especially in emergencies. The risks trade offs shift significantly
You can easily triage in medical care- guy with bone sticking out of his leg goes before guy with hemorrhoids, etc. Also that industry is already absurdly highly regulated, often to public detriment. You cannot triage which person needs toilet paper and trying to build a system where the TP needs of people could be tracked would require the most awful authoritarian ideas that would be incredibly unpopular.
One proposal I've seen to discourage hoarding is for the government, instead of banning price rises, instead to *mandate* them, with the government taking most of the mandated rise itself as tax revenue.
It gives sellers an easy excuse for why prices are going up, and it also defuses fears that some corporation is profiteering, which is always forefront in some people's minds. It doesn't help bring in new supply as much, though. There's a lot of enterprising people who would drive a truck full of bottled water down to a disaster area if it was worth their while.
I'm skeptical the state can micromanage prices in a disaster. There's no electricity, but the tax office is operating at top efficiency seems like the wrong focus.
You wouldn’t want to manage it in real time. But when the business file their taxes (annual or quarterly or whatever) they’d need to account for the higher profit with a raised marginal rate. Also no need to make it mandatory- it could just be part of the normal tax system
It’s been a rough few weeks for cats.
Cats that have served TP duty might be less in demand as entrees.
Isn’t “I’m not Jewish” the password to gain admittance to the Rothschild Space Laser control room?
Anyone who spills that password on this board is getting banned.
The first rule of the Rothschild Space Laser control room: do not talk about the Rothschild Space Laser control room.
The second rule of the Rothschild Space Laser control room...
How is Charmin not number 2?
Once upon a time artists like Bruce Springsteen decided to keep their concert ticket prices low enough so their working-class fans would be able to see them. Springsteen tickets became among the most scalped tickets, because they could be purchased for a low cost and sold for what the market would bear, which ended up being hundreds of dollars because demand was high.
With the migration of the ticket market online, it became clear to the ticket / venue monopolies that this secondary market was extremely profitable, so they created "separate" companies to re-sell their own tickets and effectively become their own scalpers. The artists charging below-market were left with a low profit margin, the fans still had to pay top dollar to see them, and the ticket companies made unprecedented profits by rent-seeking on their own transactions through shell companies.
The ticket brokers are often intertwined with the event promoters who book--and therefore negotiate the comp for--the acts, who are aware of how the game is played and are reportedly making sure to get their cut. The shell game is more about shielding the talent from the fan ire that would follow if they simply charged a market-clearing price from the get go.
Fantastic article! Found you from a Chris Best shoutout in his latest live session.
Sad state for the small pets
Bidet. One of the cheap ones from China that attaches to your existing toilet...about $65... Problem solved.
Also, emergency drinking water! Two problems solved!
I know you're right. Which is why it's so odd that I also know you're wrong.
Maybe the cognitive dissonance comes from conflating this with something related but distinct: the allocation of essential resources whose quantity is insufficient. Let's say there is only one doctor in a hurricane-stricken neighborhood with dozens of people in need of care. More doctors will arrive eventually, but a lot of the victims can't wait that long. How should we decide who to treat first? Should we open it to bidding? This is not the same situation as toilet paper, where the resource is not as essential and market pricing could expand supply. Nevertheless, I feel like my reaction to the toilet paper question is really coming from my reaction to the doctor question.
On a related note: we should relax medical licensure or at least indemnify medical practitioners in such cases. Allow nurses to do things that otherwise would require MD supervision. We should probably do more of this kind of thing in general m, but especially in emergencies. The risks trade offs shift significantly
You can easily triage in medical care- guy with bone sticking out of his leg goes before guy with hemorrhoids, etc. Also that industry is already absurdly highly regulated, often to public detriment. You cannot triage which person needs toilet paper and trying to build a system where the TP needs of people could be tracked would require the most awful authoritarian ideas that would be incredibly unpopular.
One of these things is not like the other.
"Rectal 9/11." LOL
One proposal I've seen to discourage hoarding is for the government, instead of banning price rises, instead to *mandate* them, with the government taking most of the mandated rise itself as tax revenue.
It gives sellers an easy excuse for why prices are going up, and it also defuses fears that some corporation is profiteering, which is always forefront in some people's minds. It doesn't help bring in new supply as much, though. There's a lot of enterprising people who would drive a truck full of bottled water down to a disaster area if it was worth their while.
I'm skeptical the state can micromanage prices in a disaster. There's no electricity, but the tax office is operating at top efficiency seems like the wrong focus.
I’m skeptical the state can micromanage prices, full stop.
You wouldn’t want to manage it in real time. But when the business file their taxes (annual or quarterly or whatever) they’d need to account for the higher profit with a raised marginal rate. Also no need to make it mandatory- it could just be part of the normal tax system
I don’t think a shortage of credit to bad credit risks is a bad thing
Econ 101 _and_ wiping-your-ass-on-a-cat jokes! I do believe this is the best Substack subscription I could have purchased.