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.'
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.
You sound like a pagan worshipper in Ancient Greece, commenting on the sacrifices we must make for the gods on Mount Olympus.
I’ll try to respond in the rigid language of the mythical Homo Economicus. If Taylor Swift could control the ticket booking process herself, she could choose which of those 400,000 fans got tickets, instead of being forced to accept those who make TicketMaster the most profits. She can go for maximum short-term financial gain for herself, or perhaps long-run profits, or even some kind of artistic consideration. This is why TicketMaster having control both over supply of venues (by virtue of its exclusivity contracts) and distribution is a problem that needs to be solved, to introduce elasticity into the market that can respond to demand.
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."
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.