Comment

Comment on Reselling tickets for profit to be outlawed in UK government crackdown

“Making sure there is an unattainable area” is a weird way of putting. It’s fine that some experiences (whether to do with art and entertainment or other things) that are out of reach of almost everyone - there always will be. Almost no-one can have the experience of sitting in the best box in the best opera house. Almost no-one can experience going to space. Does the government need to regulate prices of those experiences?

You ask “where is the line” as if you are not drawing one. But you are, you just don’t even see it; there are still experiences you think should receive free market prices, you just haven’t thought much about them. I’m not drawing a line - I’m saying the government should keep out of enforcing prices in entertainment and can’t think of a scenario where it would be necessary.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
You say you’re “not drawing one (line)” but then explain why you would. My point is not the best seat but a seat.

Regulating outside influences is smart. The U.S. is a great example of why. It is cheaper to get 2 tickets to Ireland plus concert tickets and board then to see the same group in L.A., CA. There are every few regulations stopping ticketmaster from scalping the ticket on stubhub, a ticketmaster subsidiary.

source
- FishFace@piefed.social ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  My point is not the best seat but a seat.
  
  So for you, the government should step in to regulate the price of concert tickets for basic seats, but not for the best seats. How many regular seats should be sold at below market value at each venue? All of them? What about when the venue upgrades 90% of their seats to “premium” seats and takes those out of the lottery sale and sells those for market value - is that OK? Are you satisfied if just two seats per performance are lotteried? Per tour?
  
  These are all political decisions now. Some civil servant is being paid to make them as a full-time job, and everyone’s taxes are paying for it. Why is that a good use of public money? Shouldn’t we instead put that money towards paying a civil servant in the department of health, or the foreign office, or justice? Or towards paying a nurse or police officer? All so that the correct number of people can experience Taylor Swift in a concert instead of on spotify, and watch a football match in a stadium instead of at the pub?
  
  but then explain why you would.
  
  I think I’ve been clear that there is no line in entertainment where the government should be involved in price regulation. What line do you think I have drawn?
  
  The U.S. is a great example of why. It is cheaper to get 2 tickets to Ireland plus concert tickets and board then to see the same group in L.A., CA. There are every few regulations stopping ticketmaster from scalping the ticket on stubhub, a ticketmaster subsidiary.
  
  How is that different from Ticketmaster selling the ticket for a higher price in the first place?
  
  source