October 26, 2007 at 8:38 am
Some interesting thoughts, though I didn't want to focus on tickets completely.
I think capitalism works to a large degree, but it can easily become bastardized and almost put as back in a feudal society where we stratify the classes. But it's the best system I've seen, so I'll stick with it.
I'm not proposing income re-distribution. If you can't afford to go, at inflated prices or not, than you can't afford it. You have to do something about that.
But in the digital world, there are people that can and want to afford iPods, but they might not want or afford a credit card. iTunes leaves them out. I know that's a bad analogy, they could rip CDs, etc., but that's an example. What happens if we don't sell physical music anymore?
I'm not sure I've phrased this well, and I'm not sure of what the issue should be. Lotteries might be the best solution so that everyone has a chance.
And I'm certainly not upset at scalpers. They've made an investment in a business and they have every right to try and run their business. I'm perfectly capable of walking down to the local college or somewhere and offering people $500 if they can get a ticket on their computer.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
October 26, 2007 at 8:40 am
Surely "American capitalism at its finest" would see the tickets priced at a level such that the number of people willing to pay for them is equal to the number of available tickets? You'd know you got this right if you didn't see tickets being offered for sale on ebay minutes after they are made available. Not fair at all, but then when is it ever?
John
October 26, 2007 at 8:54 am
This seems to indicate that you think first come/first serve is not a fair method. I would disagree. This method is very capitalistic, as is the ability for someone to go buy the tickets and resell them at a higher price. (Really, any complaints against such a method indicates a lean towards socialism rather than capitalism, though I don't know that anyone would ever be truly capitalistic.)
As I mentioned, I don't like the concept of "fair", it's just whining. However, first come / first served, isn't very capitalistic either and allowing someone to resell your product at a higher price is stupid when you could have sold it for that higher price. Capitalism is about maximizing profit by selling at the highest price to the most people. Auctions are capitalistic. Selling to the guy who doesn't have a job so he can sit in line for 3 days isn't. The most capitalistic method would be to have everyone submit a bid for # of tickets and price and allow the company to take the bids that maximize their profit.
You seem to have a fairly odd definition of socialism as any effort to be equitable. My complaints against first come first served is that it is actually a poor way to establish the market. The vendor should want the most demand possible for setting the price, high demand leads to high prices and more profit. By limiting the availability of the product (either in time or space) the vendor is reducing the possible demand. Equitability, in this case, benefits the vendor.
And finally for this part, there's nothing wrong with socialism. The attempt to shut down debate by defining your opponent's ideas as socialist and therefore bad/evil/stupid is irrational.
This makes a lottery seem like a good idea; however, you've now lost fairness to those who have both the ability and desire to stand in line or camp out days prior for the tickets.
In what way is "fairness" lost here? Are those who are able to camp out somehow not able to sign up for the lottery? Keep in mind that camping out doesn't guarantee a ticket, it just increases the odds of a ticket. Besides that, fairness, as being used here, is a utilitarian concept of fairness across the population. Removing a single individual's advantage to raise the advantage of the entire pool is not losing fairness, it is gaining it. Your use of the word fairness in that sentence is ambiguous at best and deceitful at worst. The person claiming that they have lost their fairness is actually complaining of a loss of advantage or is, as I have said before, whining.
--
JimFive
October 26, 2007 at 9:06 am
Jim - I'm with you most of the way.
But first come / first serve is a capitalistic option. While it doesn't necessarily maximize profits for the World Series events, it may lead to increased season ticket sales for next year.
If you merely auction off all of your tickets, you will may maximize income today, but have the potential of driving down future sales by creating hard feelings. The Rockies are not the Yankees and won't dominate the post season for decades to come. During the down seasons, they better have a base of fans to draw from that aren't holding grudges about being shut out of the post season.
Scott
October 26, 2007 at 9:08 am
Recenty I was at a meeting with the CIO of the city of Columbus, Ohio (my residence) and the city has a plan to have broadband available to all by 2012. The point was made that even if broadband is available some people will not have the resources (financial, etc) to make use of it. I'm also a member of my community association and we deal with this issue. It would be much faster and cheaper to send emails vice printing a newsletter, but many of our residents don't have computers. How do you include everybody if you go all electronic in communications?
Will we have a part of society that is marginalized because they don't have internet access?
October 26, 2007 at 9:14 am
Dave,
you've got a better example than me and I should have known that. I went through this with a homeowners association and we go through it with kids sports/activities all the time. There are usually still a few parents that don't have access to email and it definitely makes things harder to those in charge.
But it's more fair.
As more companies try to move everything online, how fair is that.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
October 26, 2007 at 9:18 am
But first come / first serve is a capitalistic option. While it doesn't necessarily maximize profits for the World Series events, it may lead to increased season ticket sales for next year.
This is possibly true and it is certainly important for the teams to take this into account. However, with the current vender to scalper to ticket holder model you have the same auction effect (minus some inefficiencies) with revenue going to a third party instead of the team/event. Probably the best overall option would be some sort of hybrid auction/boxoffice sales system that gave a near optimum price for most tickets but left enough first come first serve tickets so that no one felt they didn't have a chance to buy them at an affordable price.
JimFive
October 26, 2007 at 9:24 am
Dave,
Yes, I think that's what Steve's original question was about.
It's a two-part issue.
1) Make an effort to provide access. Maybe Columbus, OH should think about kiosks as part of that wireless access plan. One wouldn't need to have many of these, just a few places for those people who don't have the equipment would provide opportunity.
2) Continue to provide traditional non-digital whatever - whether it's communication or products. Even if most stores go digital in the future, there will always be grocery stores (I'm not buying my milk and vegetables on-line), and if the rest of the stores go digital, the grocery stores will go back to being "general stores", because I believe there will always be people who will want/need to buy in-person with in-hand items.
October 26, 2007 at 9:31 am
James Goodwin (10/26/2007)
As I mentioned, I don't like the concept of "fair", it's just whining. However, first come / first served, isn't very capitalistic either and allowing someone to resell your product at a higher price is stupid when you could have sold it for that higher price. Capitalism is about maximizing profit by selling at the highest price to the most people.
I'm not sure I follow this argument correctly. You appear to correctly state capitalism very well, but you precede that with a statement that appears to contradict your definition of capitalism. If the first seller does not maximize their profits, and someone else comes along to buy the good at the lower price to sell at a higher price (and people do buy at the higher price), the second seller has just fulfilled your definition of capitalism on behalf of the first seller. Capitalism really has nothing to do with equity and all to do, as you stated, with maximizing profit. If the first seller maximizes profit by selling at its price to the secondary sellers who maximize profit by selling at a higher price, then capitalism prevails.
Auctions are capitalistic. Selling to the guy who doesn't have a job so he can sit in line for 3 days isn't. The most capitalistic method would be to have everyone submit a bid for # of tickets and price and allow the company to take the bids that maximize their profit.
This looks like apples to oranges. Auctions are capitalistic, true. But if the seller has a rare good and is willing to sell at a high price to those who are willing to wait because the return is highest that way (i.e., drumming up business by making the good even more desirable), then that method is still just as much a capitalist method as an auction. However, an auction is a buyer-driven market, whereas creating additional demand is a seller-driven market.
You seem to have a fairly odd definition of socialism as any effort to be equitable.
That is in fact the end goal of socialism. However, you would be correct in saying there exist shades of gray in between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism.
My complaints against first come first served is that it is actually a poor way to establish the market. The vendor should want the most demand possible for setting the price, high demand leads to high prices and more profit. By limiting the availability of the product (either in time or space) the vendor is reducing the possible demand. Equitability, in this case, benefits the vendor.
That's a fine opinion, and I would agree with you in some, but not all, scenarios. You appear to be against any "name-brand" sellers such as Rolex, Nordstrom, Nike, etc. by this statement. Scarcity can drive up demand for some goods to the point that people will pay more for the rare version of an item they can find at Wal-Mart for much less. Hardback and paperback books are a terrific example (as is the iPhone). Hardbacks and paperbacks cost almost the same to produce, but book sellers are able to make more off the hardbacks because some people either want the very first edition of a book or prefer to have a nicer book for their library. Under your conditions above, book sellers should never do such a thing.
And finally for this part, there's nothing wrong with socialism. The attempt to shut down debate by defining your opponent's ideas as socialist and therefore bad/evil/stupid is irrational.
I agree there is nothing inherently wrong with socialism. I prefer capitalism, but I recognize it's just a preference. I was also not trying to shut down debate by commenting on the difference. I would personally prefer not to pitch in to buy everyone a PDA phone, wireless broadband for their homes, and a personal servant to stand in lines. Just my preference, but I could use all of them if you are willing to pitch in... 😉
In what way is "fairness" lost here? Are those who are able to camp out somehow not able to sign up for the lottery? Keep in mind that camping out doesn't guarantee a ticket, it just increases the odds of a ticket. Besides that, fairness, as being used here, is a utilitarian concept of fairness across the population. Removing a single individual's advantage to raise the advantage of the entire pool is not losing fairness, it is gaining it. Your use of the word fairness in that sentence is ambiguous at best and deceitful at worst. The person claiming that they have lost their fairness is actually complaining of a loss of advantage or is, as I have said before, whining.
This really depends on your definition of fairness. If someone cuts in line and is allowed to stay, you would say, "That's not fair!" Sure, it's whining, but people still claim fairness there. I don't really appreciate being called "deceitful", but I see where you are coming from. I think it really depends on how you look at "fairness." What is it? Why do we use it in ambiguous ways? The person who hits a kid that runs into the street with his car will cry, "It's not fair! I didn't have time to stop!" when he's locked up for manslaughter. The family of the little boy will say, "It's not fair!" that their son was taken from them. Life's not fair. But again, how do you define "fair"?
Really, all I wanted to point out in my note was just what you are accusing me of: people will claim different violations of fairness. I don't think equity should be the ipso facto definition. Equity is equity, but not necessarily fairness.
Good discussion. I never expected discussions about economics. 🙂
October 26, 2007 at 9:34 am
I'm also a member of my community association and we deal with this issue. It would be much faster and cheaper to send emails vice printing a newsletter, but many of our residents don't have computers. How do you include everybody if you go all electronic in communications?
Is it enough cheaper to subsidize the cost for those people that don't have computers? If not, then it isn't really cheaper. What you are attempting to do is externalize the cost of the newsletter to the recipient without informing them of it. You Could:
A) Add a newsletter fee to the membership dues of $X for the emailed newsletter and $X+Y for the printed newsletter.
B) Create an electronic newsletter and have an association owned computer (or just a bulletin board) for member use to access that newsletter. (This would require that the newsletter be regular enough that everyone knew when it was available.)
For an association or as Steve mentioned sports leagues, etc. it seems reasonable to have a space (e.g. bulletin board) set aside for public information. It becomes the participant's responsibility to check the board. Another thing to note is that electronic communications like email are not instantaneous. You should not be cancelling tonight's event with an email, you have to take the time to post a notice and use the telephone and even then you are going to miss people.
Will we have a part of society that is marginalized because they don't have internet access?
Yes, Just as we have a part of society that is marginalized because they can't get cable television. (Note, I don't mean can't afford, there are many places where the cable companies won't run a wire because it is too sparsely populated to be worth it to them.)
October 26, 2007 at 10:24 am
If the first seller does not maximize their profits, and someone else comes along to buy the good at the lower price to sell at a higher price (and people do buy at the higher price), the second seller has just fulfilled your definition of capitalism on behalf of the first seller.
A couple of things here. I realize I didn't state it very well initially, but what I should have said is that "First come/first served" is not intrinsically capitalistic. The second point that I was making is that if the first seller did not maximize his profit then he was stupid (or more accurately mistaken) which allows the second seller to make a profit. Certainly the second seller is a good capitalist, the first seller is a poor capitalist, but the second seller does not fulfill my definition on behalf of the first seller, he fulfills it on his own behalf.
That [equity] is in fact the end goal of socialism.
I disagree. I also disagree with the implication that capitalism can have no interest in achieving equity in any sphere.
That's a fine opinion, and I would agree with you in some, but not all, scenarios. You appear to be against any "name-brand" sellers such as Rolex, Nordstrom, Nike, etc. by this statement. Scarcity can drive up demand for some goods to the point that people will pay more for the rare version of an item they can find at Wal-Mart for much less.
Certainly, profit scenarios vary and an auction is not always the most efficient way to achieve a reasonable profit, but it is the canonical way of determining the "correct" market price for an item.
Brand value is (should be) a result of quality determinations made by the consumer. The Timex watch is not the same as the Rolex watch. (Making all of the usual disclaimers of rational consumers and perfect knowledge.) Scarcity in Rolex watches is (should be) the result of market forces that indicate to Rolex where the equilibrium point is for the supply of their product. If they make more, they lose money. If they start selling at Walmart, they lose money.
Hardbacks and paperbacks cost almost the same to produce, but book sellers are able to make more off the hardbacks because some people either want the very first edition of a book or prefer to have a nicer book for their library. Under your conditions above, book sellers should never do such a thing.
Not true, Having hardback and paperback books (noting that the paperbacks come out almost a year later) allows for a legal form of price discrimination. The publisher gets to sell to those who will pay a higher price first, then those who want the middle priced trade paperback (Is that the right name for the larger paperback that comes out between the hardcover and the normal sized paperback?) and then those who want the low priced pulp paperback. The trick for the publisher is to sell as many of each tier as possible before the next tier comes out.
I would personally prefer not to pitch in to buy everyone a PDA phone, wireless broadband for their homes...
And I don't see anyone suggesting that. To imply that socialism leads to that is completely disingenuous. I don't really want to get into an argument about socialism here but just to clarify, socialism is the idea that the product of labor should belong to the producer of that labor (the worker) and therefore any profit made from that product should go to the worker as well. Any reasonable socialist should of course allow for a certain amount of profit to the owners of the building and equipment and should allow for their being a loss from labor instead of a profit, which is why socialism is usually talked about in terms of ownership of the means of production.
The social programs you are railing against aren't socialist, they are social. They are programs allegedly aimed at benefitting society as a whole. A prime example is the education system. The premise: an educated population leads to a more efficient and productive workforce that is better able to self govern; leads to the idea of a public school system. You can argue against the premise. And you can argue against the implementation. But either way it would be incorrect to dismiss it as being a socialist idea when creating an efficient and productive workforce is obviously beneficial to a capitalistic society.
Sure, it's whining, but people still claim fairness there. I don't really appreciate being called "deceitful", but I see where you are coming from.
Why not? Is it not fair 😀 ? Seriously, though, I was calling you ambiguous, I said it could be deceitful.
I think it really depends on how you look at "fairness." What is it? Why do we use it in ambiguous ways?
Because it doesn't really mean anything. Whenever someone says, "it isn't fair", what they are really saying is that they don't like it. It is a statement of preference. And reality doesn't have much to do with people's preferences.
October 26, 2007 at 10:48 am
Digital smidgatal...
Oddly enough, some people do not own a car. Does that prevent them from getting across town, across the State or even the planet? No, it does not prevent them at all.
Require digital access to everyone? No way. Those that are less fortunate in life have no need for broadband access in their home even if it's wireless. Cities embarking on that type of program better have homelessness, alcoholism, unemployment, heath/life/safety issues all resolved first.
Should lack of digital access be a hindrance to someone? No, it should not. If you are a capitalist, then you will not restrict the ability of your customers to purchase from you by limiting them to just one purchase method. Does that fit all busines models, no.
If you own an iPod, is it right that you can't buy a song over the phone? No, it does not fit the technology being used. You must use digital.
I enjoy semi-pro hockey. They sell tickets any way they can and with plenty of advanced notice for the playoffs. Sure, the procrastinators will wait until the last minute and go stand in some line and deservedly so.
Digital access may become the fastest and cheapest method to handle transactions but other methods must still be offered. It's called customer service.
Credit cards did not catch on overnight but when they did, look at the mess it created for a lot of people. Very useful when used properly, very dangerous when not.
Same goes for digital access to everything. Heard of the new game called Go Phish? There are only loosers in this game.
October 26, 2007 at 11:01 am
Bob Hoffman (10/26/2007)
Oddly enough, some people do not own a car. Does that prevent them from getting across town, across the State or even the planet? No, it does not prevent them at all.
Just like my wife. We own a car (paid for in fact) but she does not drive it. People are so surprised that she can't just hop in a car anytime she wants. Give her 48 hours notice and she can be anywhere she needs to go.
Digital access may become the fastest and cheapest method to handle transactions but other methods must still be offered. It's called customer service.
There are legal requirements that government entities must post notices in the news papers. Tough luck for those of us that don't take the news paper.
Same goes for digital access to everything. Heard of the new game called Go Phish? There are only loosers in this game.
Any system can be abused. The faster the system, the faster the abuse.
ATBCharles Kincaid
October 26, 2007 at 11:09 am
Any system can be abused. The faster the system, the faster the abuse.
And the quicker mistakes can be made.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
October 26, 2007 at 11:32 am
James,
Very well stated, and I think I agree with most, if not all, your points. I think a few more of these massive responses would probably resolve any issues of understandability, but I completely see where you are coming from and think any remaining items would be related to semantics or preference as opposed to real disagreements.
For example, I would say that the public education system is indeed a socialist approach/implementation of an education system, but I agree that it is also a necessary and (mostly) good system. I see this as more a semantic disagreement rather than a real disagreement.
Thanks for the great discussion on these points.
Ryan
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply