[blhack]

The fact that you would make a blanket statement about somebody learning "economics" as if that is one skill demonstrates your level of understanding here, methinks.

--

I think you don't understand the culture at burning man, which is, or at least triest to be, completely decoupled from the concept of money. In fact, that is one of the 10 core principles.

[btilly]

The fact that you claimed that I had made assumptions that I had not in fact made demonstrates your level of understanding.

Can we dismiss the snide remarks?

I freely admit that I have never gone to burning man, nor could I possibly fit something like that into my life for many years. However that said, a better understanding of money and economics would ironically enable burning man to better set things up to create a space that is free from monetary concerns.

With the strategy that I proposed, they would be in a better position to make the event as big as it could possibly be at exactly the lowest price that breaks even. And to do it in a way that limits the ability of scalpers to take money from people who want to be at burning man, while providing freedom for people who need to change their minds to actually change their minds. (It also provides the ability to buy tickets with the purpose of gifting them to others, without having to worry about who those others might be.)

Think of it as a piece of economic judo, using economics to best produce a non-economic outcome. In some sense it is not entirely dissimilar to how a copyleft license uses copyright law to achieve a purpose that is diametrically opposite to what that law was originally intended for.

[drostie]

I am not sure that your proposal will work for anything with a concert-like structure -- much less, Burning Man.

The problem is precisely the one that anyone faces: irrationality. You're asking people to state their price of indifference several days from now. Many people will systematically under-report that, few will systematically over-report it. Scalpers can exploit this. There is also a systematic problem of forgetfulness; there will be some people who simply aren't part of the initial bid but want the product -- and scalpers can make money selling to them. Scalpers themselves are a sort of free-market force and free markets will not eliminate them.

We've already got a system which the scalpers found a way around: the normal economic voodoo which we use is, "sell tickets at the door, then scalpers can't sell at a profit any more." That works incredibly well for most events. It could perhaps be extended to arbitrary events if overselling were common practise, but I don't know how you'd soak up the hate of the people who Couldn't Get In The Door.

[blhack]

Sure we can dismiss the snide remarks. Start by retracting your implication that I refuse to learn economics.

Burning man is:

A) a nonprofit B) not a concert C) not trying to maximize their intake of money D) Attended by people from every category of the economic spectrum from Sergey and Larry to the guy saving all year for the lowest income tier of ticket.

What you're describing doesn't work for this. I'm sorry.

[blhack]

Ok.

[mst]

I think he's spot on - Burning Man seems to me to be an attempt to create an agalmic environment in the same way that open source projects are, and the use of economics/copyright as tools to mediate the agalmia's interaction with the outside world in a manner beneficial to it are the right answer here.

I'm certainly wondering if the approach would be effective for ticket sales for community conferences and similar things, since I'd much rather any extra money that could be captured went into a relevant non-profit rather than into scalpers' pockets.