This time it’s Dianne Feinstein, who has proposed legislation criminalizing the sale of tickets to January’s Obamapalooza:
In a brief Senate floor speech this afternoon, Feinstein said the measure would make it a misdemeanor to scalp coveted tickets to President-elect Obama’s swearing-in ceremony. Anyone caught doing so faces a fine, imprisonment for up to one year or both, she said.
Tickets to the inauguration are in such wildly high demand that phones in congressional offices, which hand out the tickets free of charge, are ringing incessantly. Though they’re supposed to be free, inauguration tickets have been seen advertised on Craigslist, eBay and other sites for huge sums. EBay and its ticket-selling site StubHub have now agreed to prohibit the sale of inauguration tickets on their auction sites, prompting Feinstein to commend them and thank them from the Senate floor.
You see, with a wave of the wand and a blink of the eye, Congress can make the quantity of tickets demanded equal the quantity supplied. Magic!
{ 40 comments }
Of course they are. I don’t think they “get it”. It reminds me of the various state anti-scalping laws. If the Boston Red Sox decide to sell their tickets below market price, there’s going to be a secondary market that fills the void. The availability of seats at the Obama inauguration, like the seats at baseball ballpark or football stadium is fixed. Demand fluctuates. As evidenced by the blog post, demand appears to be higher than the typical presidential inauguration, as one would expect, considering it’s historical significance. When demand spikes and supply remains inelastic, what happens to prices? This is freshmen-year economics folks.
This is a really great example for an economics introduction course.
And to think, they have the brass to accuse libertarians of being “utopian”.
Maybe some things are not supposed to have a price on them.
It they are not supposed to have a price, then their sale should be discouraged.
Are you upset that drugs are not supposed to be sold either?
The “free” price is artificially low. Of course, I should not expect Senator Feinstein or the rest of her ilk to recognize this. They are simply inane cogs in the same machine that brought us the Federal Reserve System, fractional money reserve banking, fiat money and other economically disastrous policies.
I, Mr. Ackerman, am terribly upset, that drugs are not supposed to be sold.
Some things are not supposed to be sold? Then tell me, who draws the line between what is and what isn’t? Your unquestionable morals, reigning above the petty market mechanism? We already have several Airbus-loads of people trying to do that. Doesn’t seem to be working, in my humble opinion.
What is wrong with you people? A United States Senator has spoken! The importance of Sen. Feinstein’s proposed legislation cannot be dismissed lightly! This week’s lame duck session of Congress should be given over to a discussion of proposed legislation of such enormity. Perhaps another G20 Summit can be convened to discuss any resulting worldwide implications. Certainly, Warren Buffet and Paul Krugman must be called in to weigh in on the matter!
Maybe some things are not supposed to have a price on them.
That’s not up to a government bureaucrat to decide.
It they are not supposed to have a price, then their sale should be discouraged.
Since you assume what you conclude, you’re begging the question.
Are you upset that drugs are not supposed to be sold either?
Just because a government bureaucrat prohibits their sale does not mean that drugs are not “supposed” to be sold. Only market actors (you, me, everybody else) should make that decision, otherwise the decision comes from above which is tantamount to tyranny.
I agree with Michael’s comment completely. Scalping only occurs in situations where the specified, fixed price (free?) for a given good or service is significantly below the actual price the current demand will support.
If the federal government was smart, it would sell or even auction off the extra seats at presidential inaugurations and then put the profits towards the federal debt. Of course, some seats would be reserved for political figures or foreign dignitaries beforehand, individuals whose presence is actually considered an implicit part of the ceremony.
I doubt that would ever happen, though, because the “wrong people” (protesters, political foes, etc.) might end up crashing the party, if the extra seats were available to absolutely anyone with enough money to purchase them on the open market.
Why don’t they just auction off the tickets and use the proceeds to finance the ceremony instead of taxpayers’ money?
I don’t understand why anyone would want to attend such an event, however the market has spoken.
Perhaps someone should strap Feinstein to a chair in a padded cell with a TV that broadcasts Mises Institute lectures 24/7.
Oh and she should get some education on the 2nd amendment, since her voting record seems to indicate she isn’t aware there is one.
I suspect that Chad Rushing is on to something: losing control of the event is a big fear driving the push to outlaw sales of the tickets. The pols want the inauguration to be seen as a “sacred” ritual, with nothing but hosannas for the new High Priest of the Almighty State. Landrew can’t tolerate an infestation by those who are not of the body!
I imagine this is not about price at all. Maybe they just want to control who attends this thing. If tickets are resold, at any price, they lose control.
I understand that some people may regard sale of these tickets as unseemly (a view I do not share). But on what basis do they call it a crime, to be enforced by men with sticks and guns? Because it offends the senator’s tender sensibilities? So what?
I suppose this is a side of the “power corrupts” concept that I hadn’t considered before. I had always thought of it in terms of morality; I hadn’t considered the corruption of intellect and emotions. We common folk have to deal every day with the reality that we can’t have everything the way we want it. My Daddy always used to respond to my complaints with phrases like “….people in Hell want ice water, too.” But our ruling classes can’t deal. They want to believe that their power enables them to have ice water in Hell; that they only need speak the word.
Sorry for the rambling. It’s just that little incidents like this further open my eyes to the nature of these beasts.
Just because the free market is the best answer for a lot of things doesn’t mean it is to everything. I can’t believe some of the shit that I am reading here.
Human lives can’t be valued. “Oh, I paid $400 to get him killed, THE MARKET DECIDED”.
Nuclear bombs.
And your anus.
@Hey: pop quiz – which part of the phrase “free market” disallows getting somebody killed?
Hey – yes it is the answer, no exceptions. Freedom is always the answer, the other choice is coercion, which you are refering to.
@Hey–can you make your argument specific to the article being discussed? Do you hold that the market should not apply for inauguration tickets? If so, why not?
I want you to explain to me how, exactly, this is different from any sort of license agreement. Other than you want it to be, of course.
Hey,
How can you say that a free-market is “the best answer for a lot of things” when you don’t even know what a free-market entails?
You should do some reading on this site before you spout off and display your ignorance.
I guess none of you are concert goers because in fact scalpers are a fascinating example of how one specific free market ploy is bad for both the consumer and producer of a good and generates “unearned value” for a participant who doesn’t add value to any of the other parties (someone who profits in a transaction while everyone loses is what most people call “a crook”).
Music artists don’t try to price tickets at the raw economic best value. There are many reasons – one is that they wish to keep a good relationship with their fans, another that they really can’t predict the value of the good in advance and would rather “sell out” at too small a price (then recoup in merchandise) than have an “empty house” at a higher price, even if they made somewhat more money on tickets in the second case.
These decisions are economically rational in the long term; they simply aren’t the most profit-enhancing within the limited game of the one concert.
Now, the scalper purchases these tickets and then marks them up, often by several times their value. The scalper profits, but who else does?
Not the artist, who must be resigned to partially filled houses and no extra profit (as the scalpers are willing to lose some tickets to maximize value), but worse, at the high prices the “true fans”, many of whom are young, won’t be there, and instead you get many corporate groups who can afford it (and often waste a lot of their tickets, thus again the partly empty houses).
And certainly not the fans, who are paying far more for exactly the same concert.
So it’s in the interest of the artist and the concert goer, the actual person who is going to show up and see the show and use the money he didn’t spend on the scalper to buy T-shirts and more CDs, to collude and exclude the scalper, who provides no real value to anyone, only the dubious benefit of “economic efficiency” (which of course is generally of benefit only to the non-productive intermediate like the scalper, in this case).
Free markets are free markets. They aren’t necessarily good or bad. Like gravity, human structures can negate free markets; humans should do this depending on whether or not it is useful for them to do so; there is nothing intrinsically wrong or right about markets that aren’t free, in the same way that there’s nothing wrong with building that allow you to stand high above the ground.
You don’t want your structure to be destroyed by the laws of economics, or to be unfair to the individuals involved, in exactly the same way that you don’t want your building to fall over (“be destroyed by the laws of gravity”) or to drop bricks on people’s heads.
But there is nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about free markets and it’s a religious statement to say otherwise.
“But there is nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about free markets and it’s a religious statement to say otherwise.”
Or, you know, ethical. Yeah, that discipline of philosophy. I love assertions from high like yours though. Thanks for solving this problem for us, we’d never have figured out a solution by ourselves. But since you’ve done away with morality, your claims are mere subjective preferences, and thus to be ignored.
I was talking about two or three of the comments here.
The article is fine.
Free market whatever.
This is what we do? We pass laws covering inauguration tickets?
This is like the freedom fries bullshit legislation when we were about to, you know, GO TO WAR!
Shame on you congress.
“Hey”, can you be more specific? What are you “talking about” and what “two or three comments”? Communication is key here!
“Tom Human” can you map your concert analogy back to the inauguration ticket secondary market prohibitionist effort by Senator Feinstein?
“Now, the scalper purchases these tickets and then marks them up, often by several times their value. The scalper profits, but who else does?”
The people who were willing to pay more in order to get in, but wouldn’t have been able to do so if the price was not raised to reflect the equilibrium between supply and demand.
“So it’s in the interest of… the concert goer… to collude and exclude the scalper”
False. If it was in the interest of every concert goer then scalpers could not make profits. You are making an interpersonal comparison of utility – that’s a no-no.
“Free markets are free markets. They aren’t necessarily good or bad.”
Unless like, you know, freedom is good.
An historic event and many, many people want to be there. A false glory and a political orgy.
The interventionists cannot help themselves, they have to intervene. The irony of empiricism is that it is data piled on by normative intervention. This ego-driven interpretation is supposed to be more scientific than subjectivism!
It is like Ron Paul said today – that they feel important – and that without their intervention it would be very, very clear that they are totally unnecessary and irrelevant.
This is how these ego-driven interventionists (Dianne Feinstein and all the others like her) feel important. These are the Buttinskis made large. They are enemies of an advancing civilization.
“Just because the free market is the best answer for a lot of things doesn’t mean it is to everything.”
OK, then it can just be said it is the best answer to the provision of all alienable goods. Problem solved.
Enjoy Every Sandwich: heh…are you an Archon?
(what if the inauguration coincides with Festival?!
I located the following on a Congessional site:
Tickets
Tickets to the 56th Inaugural Ceremonies will be provided free of charge and distributed through Members of the 111th Congress. The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies does not provide tickets to the public. Members of the public interested in attending the Inaugural Ceremonies should contact their Member of Congress or U.S. Senators to request tickets.
The public should also be aware that no website or other ticket outlet actually has inaugural swearing-in tickets to sell, regardless of what they may claim. Tickets will not be distributed to Congressional offices until the week before the inauguration and will require in-person pick-up.
“Any website or ticket broker claiming that they have inaugural tickets is simply not telling the truth,†said Howard Gantman, Staff Director for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. “Tickets for the swearing-in of President-elect are all provided through members of Congress, and the President-elect and Vice President-elect through the Presidential Inaugural Committee. We urge the public to view any offers of tickets for sale with great skepticism.â€
What I find most interesting is the line: “Tickets will not be distributed to Congressional offices until the week before the inauguration and will require in-person pick-up.” I’m certain that some proof of identification will be involved, even though it is not stated in the notice. Perhaps this is an attempt at some form of security screening.
Sorry, I forgot that the content was shown in the Washington Post. Still, I feel this is being done as the initial step in a security screening process. Wonder if there will be an FBI background search of public ticketholders? Scalpers don’t conduct background searches.
Sorry, I forgot that the content was shown in the Washington Post. Still, I feel this is being done as the initial step in a security screening process. Wonder if there will be an FBI background search of public ticketholders? Scalpers don’t conduct background searches.
How would this work if it was a private party? The “tickets” are invitations — for specific people.
It’s at least a bit tacky to sell one…
And probably a violation of the invite…
I guess none of you are concert goers because in fact scalpers are a fascinating example of how one specific free market ploy is bad for both the consumer and producer of a good and generates “unearned value” for a participant who doesn’t add value to any of the other parties (someone who profits in a transaction while everyone loses is what most people call “a crook”).
I guess then that any reseller of goods [furniture, eggs, mattresses, cars, dark glasses, milk] must be a crook.
Music artists don’t try to price tickets at the raw economic best value. There are many reasons – one is that they wish to keep a good relationship with their fans, another that they really can’t predict the value of the good in advance and would rather “sell out” at too small a price (then recoup in merchandise) than have an “empty house” at a higher price, even if they made somewhat more money on tickets in the second case.
This is a rather odd thing to say. I was under the impression that music artists work under contract, that the producers are the ones that price the tickets according to expected sales, return and profit, just like with any other business. Scalpers actually help the market by making tickets available to those that do not want to wait in line or, worse, wait for days in the line, for a ticket.
Now, the scalper purchases these tickets and then marks them up, often by several times their value. The scalper profits, but who else does?
The person who can still get a ticket, after they are sold out at the ticket counter, benefits. That’s who. The amount such a person pays extra for the ticket is how much that person valued his or her time.
And certainly not the fans, who are paying far more for exactly the same concert.
They are paying for not having to wait in line and not only for the concert.
Like gravity, human structures can negate free markets
Human structures do not negate gravity – nothing can actually negate gravity.
You don’t want your structure to be destroyed by the laws of economics, or to be unfair to the individuals involved, in exactly the same way that you don’t want your building to fall over (“be destroyed by the laws of gravity”) or to drop bricks on people’s heads.
Buildings depend on gravity to work. Your analogy is not correct.
But there is nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about free markets and it’s a religious statement to say otherwise.
Free markets are a result of voluntary, mutually beneficial trades – you cannot say there is amorality in such relationships, as long as they are allowed to be free and if rights are not violated.
“But there is nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about free markets and it’s a religious statement to say otherwise.”
You see, if there is no such thing as individual human will, individual human dignity… then the difference between “voluntary” and forced is irrelevant.
GOOD is defined by what our glorious leaders/The People/God/Tradition write into law. Therefore “free markets” can be good or evil depending on whether they are regulated/approved or not…..
“But there is nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about free markets and it’s a religious statement to say otherwise.”
“free markets” can be good or evil depending on whether they are regulated/approved or not…..â€
Free markets are nothing but the instantiation of property rights. Some people, especially socialistst, think you can separate ownership of property from its control. You can’t. Ownership is control. Without control, you have no ownership even if you hold the piece of paper giving you title to the property.
Stripping control from ownership was the great con game of German socialists. They fooled almost everyone. Russian socialists were too honest to fool anyone. German socialists figured out that the state could take complete control of property and few people would complain as long as they allowed the owner to keep his title. It’s socialism just the same, but a more dishonest, sinister variety. And it has fooled most Americans as well.
The less freedom in the markets, the fewer are property rights. So if you think theft is immoral, then you will have to agree that state control of markets is immoral because it is theft. Some may think this is a new idea, but the Church Scholastics understood this very well and wrote extensively about the morality of the free market for centuries before Adam Smith. They concluded that the only moral market is a free market.
@Tom Human
If you’re going to comment on this site, you might want to read something on this site. Walter Block’s “Defending the Undefendable” in fact has a direct refutation of what you say. See p. 83.
http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
Sorry for delays.
The overall issue between me and the rest of you appears to be that you see everything as massively black and white absolutes… for example, if I don’t believe in inalienable property rights or free markets, then I’m for theft.
The point is that these black and white ideas are never right. I believe in property rights – up to a point. I believe in free markets – up to a point.
Again, you’re never going to appeal to the common person, or the savvy person, if you persist in saying juvenile things like “state control of markets is theft” when your average guy AND your savvy guy really wants to have markets that are guaranteed to be open with information, and where you can be sure that nearly all the participants are solvent and will remain so without having to do due diligence before depositing your paycheck.
As for the scalper example, your refutation is truly dreadful. You make bald claims like “If it was in the interest of every concert goer then scalpers could not make profits” without any actual reasoning or proof behind it. (You could make exactly the same claim about kidnapping – ‘if it wasn’t in the interest of the families of the people being kidnapped, then kidnappers couldn’t make money’ – ignoring that the kidnapper *creates* the money making opportunity by illegally taking the person).
“They are paying for not having to wait in line and not only for the concert.”
Perhaps you are not aware, but people haven’t stood in line for concerts in many years – we buy them “online” as the kids call it these days.
I or thousands of other concert goers do not profit at all from scalpers – neither does the artist – and raising ticket prices is uneconomic for both parties as well as being spiritually undesirable (not that I expect anyone here to care about that). Let me go through the economics to show you.
The point is that scalpers purchase all the tickets of shows and then dole out some fraction (2/3 or so) at a huge multiple to the original price.
There’s no additional utility in the slightest for the concert goer. In many or most cases, the shows wouldn’t fully sell out anyway – the scalper profits by creating an artificial shortage. I suppose you could argue that *different* people are seeing the show – the richer people – but fewer of these people (and, frankly, gaining less utility from the ticket than the true fan would, by any meaningful definition of utility except “pay more”).
It does show that am kleinem the artist could be charging more for that one show and getting it, but unless you’re aging superstars like the Rolling Stones (who you’ll note charge so much that their tickets don’t get scalped) you have a lot of good reasons to charge just as much will fill the hall, no more – because you as the artist make much more money from merch sales than you do from the door – whereas the scalpers have every economic incentive to charge far more, even if some reasonable fraction of their tickets go unsold as a result.
There’s also the intangible that the artist would rather play to a full house just because it’s a lot more fun – and would rather play to a house full of fans than a bunch of people on a corporate ticket (you can always tell when concerts have a lot of corporate seats because they’re at best 80% full and a lot of people trickle out after the first 45 minutes or so).
So the artist and the fan have every reason in the world to collude, destroy the free market, and set a “reasonable” price for tickets.
I sorta liked “Defending the Undefendable” (better usage: Indefensible”) but it mixes the stupid with the fairly canny. For example, the reason that you can’t shout fire in a crowded theatre is *people have died from that action* – crushed to death in a panic – so your right as an individual to free speech is in this case completely outweighed by *the rights of the many to not suffer the risk of a pointless death*.
All other grown-ups understand that all your rights are limited because they are the result of negotiations with others. You are none of you supermen; sometimes you’ll be successful, sometimes you’ll fail, death will come for all of you. Grown-ups understand that they aren’t John Galt, nor is anyone else. I’m closer to a Randian superhero than most of you – I went to a school you never heard of, made a million as an engineer, and I’m also a fairly well-known musician – which means I realize how damned lucky I have been and how much I appreciate the nurturing I got from those socialist paradises I grew up in that gave me good health and so much better an education than most of the people I meet.
Grown-ups also understand such concepts as “ethics”, “the general good” and that sort of thing you probably consider “effete”, “slave talk”, or “theft”.
But really, you should take a more nuanced view if you want us to take you seriously.
Thanks for the soapbox, I appreciate the thought you’ve put into this site and your philosophies.
Comments on this entry are closed.