"Influencing the market" is just a way of introducing unenforcable or ineffective rules, or unintended consequences. You want to tax resale of tickets at above face value at 100%? Sure. Now enforce it. I mean, it's been illegal in many states for a while now anyway.

Back in the day, before the web, anyone who wanted a ticket at face value could get one. You just had to wait in line. For a long time. And back then, people said that system was unfair, because wealthy people could afford to take the day off of work, while poor people couldn't. Or wealthy people could simply pay other people to wait in line for them. And the wealthy people realized, hey, the limit is 8 tickets but I'm going with just a group of 4... I can buy all 8 and sell 4 to people at the end of the line for a profit. And they did! And so waiting in line became fruitless, unless you were really, really, really early, because all the wealthy people (scalpers) would buy the max number of tickets and the show would sell out fast. Now we have the internet and nobody has to wait on a line, everyone can log in at the exact moment, but people once again say this is unfair.

The idea that you can somehow ignore, heavily influence, or override the free market in concert tickets is nonsensical.

So we can influence the market for travel, healthcare, education, military, environment, food, children’s toys, etc. But not for tickets to watch Taylor Swift?

The market for concert tickets currently starts out "influenced" by the fact that the face value (for popular acts) is well below the market-clearing price. And people hate this system, because it attracts resellers who naturally see an easy profit opportunity, these resellers aggressively obtain the majority of all tickets through a variety of back channels, leaving very few actually available to be purchased at the face value. And, because keeping face value below market-clearing price means there is more demand than supply, this system, for various reasons, led to a single company monopolizing the sale of tickets and charging massive, unavoidable fees, which people hate even more.

If we actually were letting tickets be un-influenced, they would be sold via some kind of auction or like an IPO.

The point is not that you can't influence the market, it's that the market is simply a natural phenomenon that will strongly resist every attempt at diminishing it with counter-effects that may be unpopular, unwanted, unfair and unintended.

Seems a bit of a weird question.

Considering how often it's discussed on HN what the unintended effects are of regulations on healthcare, education, and environment.

I would wager more than 5% of posts that got more than 100 comments in the last 5 years have discussions about that topic.

There are three categories of criticism being mixed up here.

1. You cannot influence the market, it will always revert to form.

2. You can influence the market, but in doing so, you will cause too many damaging side-effects.

3. You should not influence the market, because it’s morally wrong to do so.

The first comment was very much in category 1, but now it sounds like category 2.

The problem with category 2 arguments is that they pretend any solution must be perfect with no side-effects or we shouldn’t do it. Clearly, it’s a trade-off - even if there are negatives, if they are outweighed by the positives, it’s worth doing.

Thus, if it’s possible some mixture of regulation, tax and subsidy can prevent monopolistic behaviour, it’s worth at least discussing.

Well 2. is only a subset of 1., on a long enough time scale, as all human 'influences' will vanish too.

Animals, even plants, experience market forces to some extent. So I would say 'You cannot influence the market over millions of years, it will always revert to form.'

Within the next million years, I predict we’ll find different solutions. For now, I’ll focus on the next few decades.

The point is that there always exists a market clearing price for everything, which can be modified temporarily via human action, but not forever.

If we can improve things during that timeframe, great (perhaps phrased better as “In the long run, we’re all dead anyway”). And by the time we reach the end of that timeframe, the context will be different.

"Improve" how? And for whom? You have 400,000 people wanting to see a Taylor Swift concert each night in a venue that seats 80,000 (or whatever the actual numbers are). Lots of fans are going to be disappointed, shut out, denied access under any plan you implement or any laws you pass. Further, denying market forces to dictate prices results in an economic loss to Ms. Swift. You can twist "the market" all you want but you can't make everyone happy.

It's not about worship, it's acceptance of the natural order, which you seem to want to deny.

As far as your points, she did try to choose which fans got tickets -- the sale was a "pre-sale" to fan club members who has pre-registered, not the general public.

You are asking to have it both ways. TicketMaster is not the problem, it is the result of decades of influencing the market, the way you'd want it, such that it appears that tickets are available and affordable while in reality, it helps artists and venue owners maximize their revenue. It functions so well, it won out over all other competitors and consolidated its grip on the industry.

You want to eliminate TicketMaster? Simply be willing to sell tickets purely by supply and demand, the way the stock market works. I can buy 1000 shares of AMZN for less commission than a single concert ticket (and AMZN will never be sold out, the market will always "respond to demand" -- your words), because there's no artificial "influence."

That's a terribly lame cop-out. Argue a position, disprove my points, say something substantial... or get lost.

ok, prove it's a lame cop out.

In Denmark it's illegal to resell tickets above the original price.

Occasionally you see "crate of beer 1000DKK comes with free Taylor Swift ticket" but it's rare.

> In Denmark it's illegal to resell tickets above the original price.

This is the foundation of the entire of retail and investment. Why should it be banned?

Because the positive social effect is of more value than a dogmatic belief in the market.