Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Economic liberalism would argue against government interference in setting prices, but would not necessarily be against one of the participants (i.e., artists) freely selling at levels below fair market prices.
So, if the artists and producers are the ones getting screwed by scalpers, why haven't they all raised their prices to equilibrium levels?
RE: Sweetcell's initial premise. In true free markets, not all products are (or need be) priced the same. There should be spikes in times of extreme shortage or scarcity, but that does not mean you raise ALL prices to dampen occasional peaks. Raising general market prices is intended to decrease demand. For instance, would it be worthwhile to raise electricity prices by 500% because there are 10 hours during the summer in which power prices spike up to $5000/hour? Nope, doesn't make sense. The $5000/hour is the price mitigator there – industrials will go offline in order to 'make' $5000/hour rather than pay $5000/hour.
There's a difference for concert tickets; folks who have to pay scalpers must do so because they were not first responders to the ticket sale. Or, are willing to pay a premium to have someone else do the work of getting a prime seat.
Granted, some shows sell out incredibly fast and even if you're there at your computer at 10:00 a.m., you can miss out. Perhaps higher prices overall would dampen that (have to say, you could get good Police tickets at Verizon for several hours – I think that was about pricing).
But for a general admission show, it would be of little help against scalpers to raise all prices. 'Cuz there will still be those folks who missed the sale, found out about the show late, etc.