Current Events > As if Ticketmaster wasn't scummy enough, now they're hiring 'pro' scalpers

(+) Yeah! (+)

So the only way you think people should be able to buy tickets at their value is to use a bot to buy their ticket. What a way to not solve the problem.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

DoctorVader posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Scalpers aren't the only people who can use bots, though.

What?

Scalpers aren't the only people who can use bots, though.

Bots cost a lot of money and would put any economical benefits at a net negative.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

If bots can be used by either scalpers or people who actually want to see the show, then there is no advantage to either party.

What kind of disingenuous bullshit is this? The average person wouldn't know where to begin to setup bots, let alone have the time or money to do so if they did have such knowledge.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Here's an article that includes bots

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-10-04/why-congress-shouldnt-curb-ticket-scalping-after-hamilton-prices-soar

Opinion article.
---

Damn that's a shitty thing of them to do. I never buy from them if I can help it. I thought the extra fees they charge per ticket is robbery enough.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

1) Have the venues charge more for their tickets directly. This is the root cause.

Then scalpers buy those tickets and resell them for more. That really solved the problem.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

1) Have the venues charge more for their tickets directly. This is the root cause.

Then scalpers buy those tickets and resell them for more. That really solved the problem.

The scalpers won't be able to make a profit if they are selling the tickets above market value.

That's what scalpers are already doing.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

DoctorVader posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Scalpers aren't the only people who can use bots, though.

What?

Scalpers aren't the only people who can use bots, though.

What?
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

1) Have the venues charge more for their tickets directly. This is the root cause.

Then scalpers buy those tickets and resell them for more. That really solved the problem.

The scalpers won't be able to make a profit if they are selling the tickets above market value.

That's what scalpers are already doing.

No. They are selling them above face value.

For a guy who claimed to have a degree in econ you continue to show you know literally nothing about econ.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Not when the cost of them can be pooled together by ticket buyers.

It's clear you have no idea how any of this works.

As I said, scalping does increase allocative effeciency, which is what the economists are saying and you're repeating, but you're not understanding everything else nor the negatives.

https://academic.oup.com/restud/article-abstract/81/1/266/1730966?redirectedFrom=fulltext

fenderbender321 posted...

Also, if you guys hate ticket scalpers, there's 2 voluntarily solutions that make much more sense:

1) Have the venues charge more for their tickets directly. This is the root cause.

2) Stop buying marked up tickets from scalpers.

The simpler solution is to have your information on the ticket like with plane tickets and have a cancellation policy with an appropriate fee.
---

You do know buying all the tickets allow you to artificially inflate the market value. It doesn't matter how high tickets cost on ticketmaster. Scalpers will always sell it for more than what they should be worth.
---

1337toothbrush posted...

Capitalism, folks.

Exactly. And why unregulated capitalism is just as awful as communism in its own ways.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

You do know buying all the tickets allow you to artificially inflate the market value. It doesn't matter how high tickets cost on ticketmaster. Scalpers will always sell it for more than what they should be worth.

No it doesn't.

Just because your fake degree tells you that doesn't change how it works. If scalpers couldn't sell tickets above their value they wouldn't be a problem. But they can because of how limited supply works.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

We estimate that observed levels of resale increase allocative efficiency by 5% on average, but that a third of this increase is offset by increases in costly rent-seeking in the primary market and transaction costs in the resale market.

One third of the 5% increase in efficiency is offset by what you're saying. That means it's a net gain.

There's no way you read even a paragraph in the study. Go read it. Time is a variable in it and that thing is from 2013, before the prevalence of bots.

Do you understand where that's heading?
---

DoctorVader posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

We estimate that observed levels of resale increase allocative efficiency by 5% on average, but that a third of this increase is offset by increases in costly rent-seeking in the primary market and transaction costs in the resale market.

One third of the 5% increase in efficiency is offset by what you're saying. That means it's a net gain.

There's no way you read even a paragraph in the study. Go read it. Time is a variable in it and that thing is from 2013, before the prevalence of bots.

Do you understand where that's heading?

Fender will never understand. He probably went brain dead from all his horse fucking.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

DoctorVader posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

We estimate that observed levels of resale increase allocative efficiency by 5% on average, but that a third of this increase is offset by increases in costly rent-seeking in the primary market and transaction costs in the resale market.

One third of the 5% increase in efficiency is offset by what you're saying. That means it's a net gain.

There's no way you read even a paragraph in the study. Go read it. Time is a variable in it and that thing is from 2013, before the prevalence of bots.

Do you understand where that's heading?

Fender will never understand. He probably went brain dead from all his horse fucking.

There it is!

Godwin's Law 2.0

Way to prove my point.
---

Only read the first 30 posts but gender is gettting creampied lol
---

Giant_Aspirin posted...

this is the free market in action. until this is regulated it will stay a steaming pile of anti-consumer shit

American capitalism has always been anti consumer.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Fender will never understand. He probably went brain dead from all his horse fucking.

Fender sounds like he knows very little about the world around him.

fenderbender321 posted...

I read the entire paragraph. That's all there was. The rest you have to pay to see? Lol.

If it's irrelevant, post something that includes bots.

That's not how it works. The fact that you figured that's all there was to it shows you never took any higher education.

I gave you a study while you're providing opinion articles. Being paid doesn't erase facts. Since you're so confident in the inner workings of bots and software, being able to read the study should not be a roadblock for you.

If you can't counter what I've put forth to counter what you're saying, you've lost the argument.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

You put forth a study that costs $30 to see. I'm not paying for that.

Again, for someone that says bots are available to everyone, which is a deeper dig to find reliably, reading the study is less of a dig if you've even been to college.

And that's how most studies work and cost genius. Further proof you've never been to college.

fenderbender321 posted...

But I can tell you this...the study likely fails to account for future human behavior.

This doesn't even make sense. You yourself have not accounted for it and has nothing to do with the future.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

This is the first time in my life I've ever seen somebody argue on the internet by posting links to studies you have to pay for. That's a good tactic. I'm gonna steal that.

"Here, click on this website. Yeah, you have to pay $300 to see the content, but if you do, then you'll see that I'm definitely right. Otherwise, you lose."

I'm serious, that's genius man. Genius.

I'm not gonna make up facts. Studies are regarded world wide.

If there's one study that's been done that disproves what you're saying, that is the only source out there. I can't make up info, and in the absence of it, it doesn't mean you're right. You understand that right?

And the article is available for free all over the place. As I said, you seem to know much about the internet works, so go read it and stop making excuses.

I mean, WSJ is paid, but is used as a source everywhere. It's just that people are not idiots and know how to read the article anyway.
---