You better explain "straw man" to the OP.
And then somebody ought to explain "straw man" to you and the CO. A "straw man" argument is a deliberately weak argument constructed for a position that one opposes. One knocks down the argument, and so debunks the opposing position, in the eyes of those fooled by this. In other words, sort of what CO's argument would be, if it had been made by me, instead of by him.
The CO wrote:For what you are proposing, scalpers would have to sit on seven and a half million dollars for over 8 months with no gaurentee of profit. Scalpers don't work on the long term investment plan. It is a straw man concern.
we were were looking at a single scalper, or even a single ticket brokering agency, 7.5 millions dollars would, indeed, a devastating enough potential loss, that nobody would think of taking on that kind of exposure. But since when has the Internet ever brought in just one or even just a few people, at a time?
The fallacy in your argument is to be found in the fact that "the scalpers" aren't a monolith or a single company. They're an entire class of lowlife. If a mere 1,000 scalpers move in on this action, the potential loss on a 7.5 million dollar purchase drops to $7500 per individual or company, nothing that can't be quickly recovered. To see the weakness in your argument, let's apply it to another situation, and see the absurdity that results. To be sure that we're finding a solid lower bound, let's say that the average American eats 1/4 of a pound of meat per day, meat being priced at an implausibly low $2 per pound. That would give us over 75 million pounds of meat, to be purchased at a price of no less than 150 million dollars - and we can be more than reasonably sure that the real world figures will be higher than that. Let's apply your logic, and see what happens."Honestly, you're expecting us to believe this? That the supermarkets are going to put down $150 million dollars, to pick up 37.5 thousand tons ... that's tons, mind you ... of meat which they don't know will be sold, and which could go bad in just a few days if it isn't sold? This 'beef' theory of yours is sounding kind of far fetched, don't you think?"
It sounds funny, because the situation is familiar, and we know that yes, the supermarkets will obviously order a lot of meat, today, tomorrow, and so on, indefinitely. Obviously, the conclusion is absurd. But it's the same logic that you've just used, CO, and asked the rest of us to accept.
The OP has offered a sensible suggestion that deserves serious and rational consideration, not the flippant display of attitude to be found in a non-argument like the one I just rebutted. Are Burning Man tickets "a bargain"? Maybe if we foolishly insist that the Market must know best, but just to be different, let's try using our common sense. Aside from a few large installations funded by the LLC, all that one finds at Burning Man is what the participants have brought. Artists, as a group, aren't rich people. Let the ticket prices soar to the level the market will bear in the short run
, rendering scalping an unprofitable business by eliminating the shortage generated by the sub-equilibrium pricing, and those starving artists are going to be replaced by stockbrokers and trustifarians who will arrive, look around, and seeing nothing because those who would have created something couldn't afford to come, will report that Burning Man was hugely overrated and something of a hoax. And they'll be right, because everything they would have seen had shortsighted greed not been the LLC's guide, will be gone, in that scenario.
Should the LLC really be ready to destroy its own event, just to please a handful of ideologues? Or should Burning Man go on being about something other than seeing just how much money can be squeezed out of those entering the gates, in the least amount of time? Somewhere, along the way, didn't I hear somebody say that this was supposed to be a non-commercial event? I could have sworn that somebody said that.