No, they're not, says moi -- as I've had to say before on previous occasions.
To the consumer, which in this case is the chap or chappess who didn't manage to buy Warriors' tickets in the eleven minutes in which it took to sell them, the scalper offers the service of offering tickets that they'd otherwise not be able to secure.
If you value my ticket to this unlikely semi-final more than I do, and you're willing to show that with ready money, then why does our voluntary trade make me a bloody mongrel, when our willing sale obviously makes you so happy?
Methinks the Butcher should rethink his outburst when he gets back from his Croatian holiday.
UPDATE: Scalpers are good! Paul Walker agrees: "Ticket reselling in an open competitive retail market situation like Trade-me is a good thing for fans, not a bad thing..."
UPDATE: Scalpers are good! Paul Walker agrees: "Ticket reselling in an open competitive retail market situation like Trade-me is a good thing for fans, not a bad thing..."
15 comments:
The reason we have scalpers is that the sports club is selling tickets at less than market price. It is doing itself out of money. Instead it should auction the tickets to the highest bidder, i.e. sell them all on Trademe, that way the fans will be satisfied as the tickets will be sold at a price they are willing to pay, the money will go to the sports club instead of a scalper and the sports club will receive more money.
Wow PC, that is some of the most piss weak reasoning I've seen from you in a while (and I've seen some shockers), you make an awful lot of assumptions about who brought the tickets and for what reasons. If the eleven minute sellout was simply fans buying very quickly, then all well and good, if it was fuckers buying out the tickets in order to then on sell to the average fan at inflated prices then this is fucked. The bottom line is neither you or I know which was the case so using it to support your 'market solves everything' wet dream is a incredibly poor analogy.
Right, I'm off to polish my Lenin shrine.
So you missed out then, Sleepy? (Or is that Dopey?!). Ah, too bad.
Just think, if you were *really* concerned about the real fans missing out, you could have gone online yourself, bought a sackful & then in true socialist-loving style, given them all away!
But you didn't. Funny that. Stop your bloody grizzling. It's a question of supply & demand. They couldn't give the bloody seats away a few weeks ago.
Tickets too dear? No problem. Just think, you get to sit in the comfort of your own home, next to your own clean loo with a good supply of the non-price-inflated poison of your choice.
And no travelling and parking hassles to boot! ;)
Oh, and as for the Butcher ... I look forward to his *not* increasing his prices should there ever be a scarcity of lamb chops!
Surely the people who make the tickets in the first place reserve the right to add any provisions they like to the sale? Say, the provision that they are not on-sold? In the case of the U2 concert, "Scalpers" were guilty of breaking a contract.
Admitedly I don't know whether such a provision was made at the time of sale with these tickets, but if there was such a provision, you're supporting a fraud in order to promote a "free market".
The rules of the exchange are the business of the people involved in the exchange. As such, whether or not it is a good economic descision or not is irrelevent as far as assessing whether a fraud has been perpetrated.
By highlighting the difficulties of enforcing the rules created both the two willful parties, as a reason for discarding those rules, you're basically saying, "Well, capitalism doesn't really work, it'll all come down to dog-eat-dog so get use to having contractual obligations voided. Unless of course, you do it my way."
Exit individualism, Enter the premise that capatalism inevitably crumbles under the weight of its own contradictions.
Would this logic be applied to property that is copyrighted such as software, music CD's and the likes?
I would strangle anyone who would try to on-sell my software to someone else who didn't buy it from me.
FF
Interesting question you pose. Objectivists generally support the idea of Intellectual Property. Others, including some Libertarians, do not. I've spent a lot of time working in the area of IP and am beginning to think that IP a somewhat like "reputation". Under many circumstances it is not property at all and liely should not be treated as though it were. This is an interesting area indeed.
David S
Another interesting question you pose. Is it possible for the purchaser of the tickets to on sell if he has already agreed not to? Would that depend on the nature of the "agreement" between the parties? Is it enforceable or is it like Indivdual Rights in that you only have what you can exercise?
LGM
Fuzzy logic being used here PC
This is not an example of an open market operating here re Scalping
The fact is the Warriors use a monopoly to sell the tickets through (Ticketek)
Ticketek allow a few to buy as many tickets as they like.
Is it an open market if 1 person comes along and buys all the tickets and disposes of them as they see fit?
Is it an open market if 100 or 1000 or 10000 do the same
I don't consider it is.
If everyone that wanted a ticket went into a ballot to receive one (i.e 1 name - 1 ticket) then scalpers would then operate in an open market. Power of supply and demand
You are in fact defending the privileged few. Shame on you
No shame, Anon. No "fuzzy" logic, either. On the contrary, it's clear-cut.
The Warriors' organisation *choose* to sell their tickets through Ticketek, who then choose their method of sale.
Why should you be able to tell Ticketek - or any organisation in which you are wholly unconnected, for that matter - how to operate?
This just happens to be a huge game. You can't always get what you want ...
falafulu fisi:
I would strangle anyone who would try to on-sell my software to someone else who didn't buy it from me.
I sell cars. I would strangle anyone who would try to on-sell my cars to someone else who didn't buy it from me.
(other) anonymous:
is it an open market if 1 person comes along and buys all the tickets and disposes of them as they see fit?
Is it an open market if 100 or 1000 or 10000 do the same
I don't consider it is.
Well, you don't know what an open market is, then! Of course it is. Nothing could possibly be clearer.
The point is that tickets are sold on the condition that they wont be scalped. Forget the economic issues, scalping is breaking an agreement.
A gentleman's agreement then, if you like, Tom, ie non-binding?
I guess somebody who is caught could be prosecuted, but who's going to bother? "No on-selling, please" is the sort of statement that sounds good to placate the grumbling, but is ultimately meaningless.
The counter point to your argument is that nobody's forced to buy the (scalped) tickets, yes?
Aren't libz all about not breaking contracts? To buy a warriors ticket is pretty much making a contract not to on sell them. It may not be easily enforceable, but it is still the warrior's right to make that condition for their tickets. you argue whether it is silly for the warriors, but it is wrong for scalpers to break that agreement.
For goodness sakes, Tom, stop going round in circles! Read my last post again.
If it's so important to the selling outfit, ie Warriors, then why hasn't anybody been prosecuted?
A: Because it's obviously *not* bleeding important to them, in spite of the "oh, by the way, you're not supposed to on-sell this, tee hee"! Grrrr.
I'm not going around in circles, I am merely repeating what I thought were the ideas of the libertarians of honoring contracts. The agreement with buying tickets is binding, because they are canceled if they are known to be on sold, hence the scalpers don't put the ticket number on trade me. It doesn't matter how important an agreement is with someone, if you don't want to keep your side, don't, make the agreement.
"The counter point to your argument is that nobody's forced to buy the (scalped) tickets, yes?"
that is beside the point. If I say I will give you say $10 and you sign an agreement that you wont spend the money on buying apples. If you buy some apples, the apple vendor is not going to be forced, but you are breaking your agreement with me.
"I guess somebody who is caught could be prosecuted, but who's going to bother? "No on-selling, please" is the sort of statement that sounds good to placate the grumbling, but is ultimately meaningless."
Why is it meaningless? only cos it cant be enforced easily? just because an agreement can't be well enforced, it doesn't mean that it is alright to break it.
Well then it's a pretty hollow 'agreement' then, isn't it.
Of course libertarians believe in the upholding of contracts. If the Warriors management decided to prosecute scalpers for ignoring their request, nobody's stopping them.
Q: But if the Warriors aren't interested in enforcing their own request, why are you so bothered?
Post a Comment