[bobbyi_settv]

> All you are changing is which people get the tickets.

I don't think this is true. Without scalpers, a sold-out concert ends up with basically every seat filled. Since services like StubHub have gotten big, it is now more common for there to be many empty seats because those were snatched up by scalpers and never got bought.

The scalpers are often acting rationally here by holding out for high prices until the end instead of dumping their tickets because they make more overall that way even if some inventory goes unsold.

[ikeboy]

I don't think this undermines my point about value of tickets. If the total spent on some group of tickets goes up, then the buyers valued those tickets more than otherwise; it's thus better for them to have those tickets than the previous group.

[braythwayt]

This is your point, but not everyone agrees with your point. Which doesn't really mean that you're wrong, just that we have entered an area of subjectivity.

What you suggest is certainly one way to measure "better" objectively, but that doesn't magically make it the best way.

On a large scale, you can see this in the field of health care. Some people argue as you do, and this leads to a fully free market for medicine. And the principle is that the most good will be done, because the people who value their health the most will pay the most for their services.

But whether we agree or disagree with the principle, surely we must acknowledge that there are entire countries full of people who have a different belief about the greatest good with respect to health care: In Ontario, for example, it is usually illegal for a doctor to charge more than a set amount for a certain type of procedure, and thus the people able to pay more are prevented by law from doing so.

That doesn't make Ontario, Canada "right" and Ontario, California "wrong," but clearly the idea that "it is better if the people willing to pay the most get the most" is not a universally held belief.

[ikeboy]

>In Ontario, for example, it is usually illegal for a doctor to charge more than a set amount for a certain type of procedure, and thus the people able to pay more are prevented by law from doing so.

There are several different possible justifications for such a law:

1. We think the amount people can pay for some services should be capped, someone willing to pay more doesn't mean they value it more 2. We think that people are uninformed about the prices of services, and/or are extorted by time pressure, and/or the medical profession is extracting rents

If it's 2, then they can still agree that people should be able to pay what they want to, but there's an informational asymmetry because you don't have time to shop around when there's an emergency, or there's a monopoly that needs price controls to break, etc. None of those invalidate my point.

Does any of Ontario's rules apply to discretionary medical services?

Do you have any other example that applies without falling into one of the categories above?

[braythwayt]

Ontario has a third justification:

As a society, we value the idea of everyone having access to health care, and if we make medicine a free market, the only people who get it will be those willing to pay the most.

Thus, we specifically reject the argument that providing health care to fewer people who pay more results in a greater benefit.

The reasons for our belief vary from completely subjective moral arguments to arguments that society overall benefits from having a healthy citizenry, just as society overall benefits from having a healthy infrastructure.

I don’t need to debate the specific reasons with you, I’m just pointing out that it is neither #1 nor #2. We certainly think there are people willing to pay more, and that those willing to pay more are correctly valuing it form themselves. We don’t believe that those unwilling to pay more don’t understand the value of medicine.

In the end, not everyone agrees with your perspective on value. Many do. I understand there’s this gigantic country south of us who believe medicine should be a free market, and that many of its citizens think its health care system is providing better value than ours.

But I insist that your views, while valid from your perspective, do not represent a universal truth.

[ikeboy]

>As a society, we value the idea of everyone having access to health care, and if we make medicine a free market, the only people who get it will be those willing to pay the most.

Um what? If you artificially reduce the price, you reduce the supply, and thus decrease the number of people who get it.

My model of free market here is not supposed to affect the total supply, just the limited supply is divided based on money. If price controls increase supply, then there was a market failure of some sort, which probably counts under reason 2.