[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V9 #65



>Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:06:11 -0500
>From: "O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>
>  >
>  >I believe [the 8-ticket limit] is a device to prevent brokers from 
>"snatching all the
>  >good ones", as kevin mc puts it.
>
>Wouldn't this imply that there is actually *no* collusion between TM and
>brokers?  That brokers have to buy tix just like us all at purchase price?

What I was thinking of is brokers/agents who hire guys to stand in 
line for them -- keeping those guys from getting 20 or 40 at a crack. 
If there were no limit then the first guy in line really COULD 
"corner the market" if he had enough money. HOWEVER, he still 
couldn't sell them for more than market price.  The only true problem 
I see with allowing the first person in line to buy all the tickets 
is that he probably wouldn't be set up to resell them smoothly to 
thousands of customers.  And if he were, then he'd be a competitive 
threat to Ticketmaster itself.  So...looks like the limit might just 
be TM protecting itself.

However, what real incentive is there for TM to actively collude with 
brokers?  TM knows the best tickets will certainly sell.  What 
possible motivation would there be to sell them to brokers rather 
than the public?  The only one I can think of is cash...the brokers 
paying TM a fee (read: bribe if you like) to sell them the best 
tickets.  But IF that's happening -- and I'm not saying it is -- it 
seems like the brokers are walking a thin line because it would just 
push up their costs whereas the market price stays what it is...the 
buying public doesn't care what expenses go into getting them the 
ticket.  I'm not sure bribing TM would be cost-effective as a regular 
strategy.

>What gives a person the right to buy all the bread in a store at 99cents,
>and then turning around and selling it at $4 a loaf to a bunch of starving
>people??

As before, economic freedom.  What PREVENTS this from happening is 
economic reality.  Look at the scenario you had to imagine out of 
thin air for your example...a single buyer with large amounts of 
capital, capable of buying out the entire stock of a store, 
surrounded by a large crowd of starving people who -- even though 
starving -- still have enough money to buy out his whole stock -- and 
no competing store within walking or even driving distance (surely 
some of those starving people would have the wits to pool their $4 
and get a cab to a cheaper store).  Don't you feel your example is 
the least bit unrealistic?

>During times of trouble there have been swift repercussions to people who
>sold gas and the sort at inflated prices to take advantage of unusual
>demand.

Sure, politicians can make grandstanding speeches and pull in a lot 
of uninformed votes by posing as protectors of the people in those 
situations.  I count among those the governor and attorney general of 
Texas, who blathered for a week about prosecutions and hearings after 
a report of $6 gas being offered after 9/11. Of course, it was back 
to $1.30 in a couple DAYS, long before the hearings could even be 
scheduled.

In fact, allowing free markets to function is the fastest way of 
reversing genuine shortages.  If the shortage isn't genuine, then a 
few overanxious people paid more than normal for a week or so before 
the sellers had to lower prices back to normal.  BFD.


>Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 19:20:09 EST
>From: Sroundtable@aol.com
>
>>  If you
>>  outlaw ticket brokering you'll have to outlaw most of the commodities
>  > industry and a good chunk of the stock market as well.
>>
>>
>
>This is crap.  The average citizen doesn't compete with retailers in buying
>produce from farmers or from manufacturers.

Sorry, mistyping on my part.  Having mentioned that brokers can lose 
as well as make money on resales, and are not guaranteed a sale at 
ANY particular price, I pointed out that ticket brokering is a form 
of speculation.  And my sentence should have read, "If you outlaw 
*speculation* you'll have to outlaw most of the commodities industry 
and a good chunk of the stock market as well."



>Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:32:26 -0500
>From: "Jeff House" <whocasa@hotmail.com>
>
>Alan:  "So don't fret, conspiracy theorists."
>
>That's cute, but a large corporation bent on taking over several segments of
>a particular industry IS a conspiracy.  No theory about it.  If it isn't a
>conspiracy, what is?

I meant the conspiracy theorists who fret about CC or anybody else 
establishing an invulnerable monopoly and making their lives 
miserable.  The astounding irony about the anti-monopoly rants is 
that a monopoly such as they fear is ONLY possible with the 
protection of the government -- AT&T in the US being a prime example, 
in which the government made it ILLEGAL to establish a competing 
phone service for 50 years -- and it's the government itself which 
whips people up into such a panic about  --brrrrrr -- monopolies. 
Way too much like the magician's misdirection to be funny.

The US Postal Service is another.  Feel like being arrested?  Start 
offering first-class letter delivery.  For all their alleged faults, 
CC can't have would-be competitors arrested.

>PS.  Thanks for jumping in, Alan :-)

<deep bow>  wouldn't miss it :-).


>Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:54:18 +0000
>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: Tickets / Clear Channel
>
>  >That's cute, but a large corporation bent on taking over several segments
>>of a particular industry IS a conspiracy.  No theory about it.  If it isn't
>>a conspiracy, what is?
>
>Isn't the strategy called "trying to corner the market?"

It is.  It's extremely difficult to do, and the fear of its happening 
is way out of proportion to its likelihood.  The Hunt brothers got 
their asses shot off in the early '80s trying to do it with the 
silver market.  The only thing I can think of that MIGHT be an 
example is the DeBeers folks who bring you your diamonds.

Cheers,
-- 
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true."
    --Howard Stern, 5/25/00