Housing market is a great example. There was a demand for homes by people who wanted to live in em. More speculators jumped in and started flipping houses for quick profits- causing prices to rise. People who couldn't afford homes saw this and took out loans to jump in, speculating that they'd sell the house at a profit before they'd fall behind the mortgage payments- causing the prices to rise again. All this artificial demand lead to an inflated market where people looking to buy a home to live in had to take out unbearable loans or are priced out of ever owning their own home, and the cause was speculators looking for their quick buck.
This logic is somewhat mind boggling.
You are blaming the house flipper/investor for the housing market? I understand blaming the banks that lent people money for mortgages they couldn't afford. I understand blaming the people who wanted to buy homes beyond their means. I also understand laying blame on the gov't for using my tax money to bail out the entire system. However, it blows my mind that you are blaming the investor/house flipper for the housing crisis.
In the bolded above you say"people HAD to take out unbearable loans." They didn't have to though! They got caught up in the frenzy of buying more than they could afford, simply because banks pre-aproved them for much more than they could afford. The blame falls on the borrower or the lender, or imo- BOTH. But there is no blame to be had with the seller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller
They thought they could afford it because prices were going up and they could always sell later. Which is what many season ticket holders are thinking right now.
Besides, it's funny that you go after the family looking for a home and support the speculator looking for a quick buck by flipping a house.
Interesting. I don't find it funny that you go after the capitalistic minded investor/entrepreneur who is making a legitimate living in real estate, and you make him out to be the bad guy who's FORCING people to buy houses they can't afford.
There are many reasons for the housing market crashing. But to blame house flippers is ignorant imo. Blame the banks who gave out ridiculous loans, or the buyers who wanted more than they could afford. Renting a home or buying a cheaper home that is with in your budget is what the buyers should have done.
The equivalent scenario here- if you can't afford bruins tickets you should go to AHL games. It is not a fundamental right of every citizen to see a bruins home game. If you find a deal and you can afford it, good for you. If you can't, there are other entertainment options. To expect to pay bottom dollar for an exceptional piece of real estate or the most in demand entertainment experience is just plain foolish imo.
Just curious, how do you feel about socialism in general? It might help me understand your perspective better.
looking for sox tickets between april 19-24, taking a friend who will be in town for the week. He's never been to fenway (or america for that matter lol)
"They thought..." There is the problem. They could not afford it when they bought it. Doesn't matter if they think market would go up or down...they couldn't afford to make the payment. Thus, they shouldn't have bought. The buyer put themselves in a bad situation and the lender went along and made a bad loan. The seller has no part in this, other than asking for the market price at the time.
People who flip homes can't afford em long term either- but there's no problem there w/you? Besides why wouldn't people think they could afford a home when the experts at their bank are offering em the loan and assessing the property, the expert real estate agent is telling em what the place is worth and where the market is going?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Looch
In the bolded above you say"people HAD to take out unbearable loans." They didn't have to though! They got caught up in the frenzy of buying more than they could afford, simply because banks pre-aproved them for much more than they could afford. The blame falls on the borrower or the lender, or imo- BOTH. But there is no blame to be had with the seller.
I said they had to or they are priced out. And the reason for the artificially high price is?
Both of you are focused on the "seller". There is nothing wrong with selling a home, just like there is nothing wrong with selling a ticket to a game you can't make. The problem is buying tickets and homes with the sole intention of flipping em. That's why Bruin's season tickets can be revoked if they are purchased with the intent of resale (not just if they are resold).
People who flip homes can't afford em long term either- but there's no problem there w/you? Besides why wouldn't people think they could afford a home when the experts at their bank are offering em the loan and assessing the property, the expert real estate agent is telling em what the place is worth and where the market is going?
I said they had to or they are priced out.
Both of you are focused on the "seller". There is nothing wrong with selling a home, just like there is nothing wrong with selling a ticket to a game you can't make. The problem is buying tickets and homes with the sole intention of flipping em. That's why Bruin's season tickets can be revoked if they are purchased with the intent of resale and why the housing market blew up.
Yes thats why the Bruins sold entire rows to people. They just had big families, right?
Just curious, how do you feel about socialism in general? It might help me understand your perspective better.
It doesn't work- unless we're talking about socialized defense, education, highways and the like.
I'm curious what you think the purpose of the stock market is? To make profits for brokers or to provide the opportunity for people to invest their money and direct capital to promising and productive companies?
Yes thats why the Bruins sold entire rows to people. They just had big families, right?
You might not like it and want to read between the lines but you should read the lines too- its right there in the terms and conditions. Besides, I know a couple people who hold onto season tickets for their business- to give away to clients/friends/employees.
People who flip homes can't afford em long term either- but there's no problem there w/you? Besides why wouldn't people think they could afford a home when the experts at their bank are offering em the loan and assessing the property, the expert real estate agent is telling em what the place is worth and where the market is going?
If he is a wise investor/flipper, he can afford to hold the home long enough to sell it. He may not make as much money on it with the extra holding costs. He may even lose a little (just like brokers do). But he wouldn't have it foreclosed on. Just as a wise investor/broker can afford his season tickets long term. He may not make the money on them he wants to. But if he made sure his finances were in order, he wouldn't lose his season tickets and he would be able to pay his bills when due.
Quote:
Both of you are focused on the "seller". There is nothing wrong with selling a home, just like there is nothing wrong with selling a ticket to a game you can't make. The problem is buying tickets and homes with the sole intention of flipping em. That's why Bruin's season tickets can be revoked if they are purchased with the intent of resale and why the housing market blew up.
We've already had this conversations several times. But as long as you want to continue to bring it up, I'll continue to address it. You can view this fine print on the back of your ticket any way you want (and we all know how you view it). However, when season ticket reps are telling their respective season ticket holders to sell at "market value" to offset their cost so they can renew their seats, do you really think the fine print is in line with the organizations real intentions? I've also explained that I am open about being a broker with every single one of my season ticket reps for all teams I own season tickets to. In many cases I have told them I am purchasing them for resale before I purchase them so they can advise me on what they believe is a more profitable investment in the resale market.
Since you want tho keep beating the dead horse, so will I. You drive 66mph on the highway in the state on MA I'd be willing to bet? Or 31mph through your posted 30mph residential neighborhoods? You are committing a far worse crime than me imo.
JMill, when breaking the law and driving over the posted speed limits on the Commonwealth's roads, I ask that you to one thing, be careful of children on the sidewalks when spitting out your window.
If he is a wise investor/flipper, he can afford to hold the home long enough to sell it. He may not make as much money on it with the extra holding costs. He may even lose a little (just like brokers do). But he wouldn't have it foreclosed on. Just as a wise investor/broker can afford his season tickets long term. He may not make the money on them he wants to. But if he made sure his finances were in order, he wouldn't lose his season tickets and he would be able to pay his bills when due.
We've already had this conversations several times. But as long as you want to continue to bring it up, I'll continue to address it. You can view this fine print on the back of your ticket any way you want (and we all know how you view it). However, when season ticket reps are telling their respective season ticket holders to sell at "market value" to offset their cost so they can renew their seats, do you really think the fine print is in line with the organizations real intentions? I've also explained that I am open about being a broker with every single one of my season ticket reps for all teams I own season tickets to. In many cases I have told them I am purchasing them for resale before I purchase them so they can advise me on what they believe is a more profitable investment in the resale market.
Since you want tho keep beating the dead horse, so will I. You drive 66mph on the highway in the state on MA I'd be willing to bet? Or 31mph through your posted 30mph residential neighborhoods? You are committing a far worse crime than me imo.
JMill, when breaking the law and driving over the posted speed limits on the Commonwealth's roads, I ask that you to one thing, be careful of children on the sidewalks when spitting out your window.
I understand why you're upset. You're a scalper and make what living you can off of a product you don't make or improve on before selling. At least a guy flipping a house cleans up the yard and paints the place. Of course you'd be defensive.
I understand why you're upset. You're a scalper and make what living you can off of a product you don't make or improve on before selling. At least a guy flipping a house cleans up the yard and paints the place. Of course you'd be defensive.
You are a lost cause. When trying to rationalize your view you repeatedly come back time and time again to "you're a scalper...of course you'd be defensive."
I do enjoy defending my position....especially given my profession. I'm just surprised you don't enjoy defending/embracing the fact that you are a socialist.
I am a ticket broker. And I am proud of it. Since a scalper is a slang term for being a broker, I'm happy to embrace the term.
You are a socialist. Or at least you have very socialistic views. You choose not to embrace what you are.
We can keep having this debate. When it comes right down to it, I take pride in what I do. Anyone who takes pride in what they do and their beliefs, should be willing to defend their position when offered to debate the matter. I find the fact you continue to to use the "of course you'd be defensive" line, somewhat of a non issue. I suppose if I had your opinion on the subject, I'd leave it at, "we'll have to agree to disagree."
I'm ok with the fact that you feel the need to call me defensive. I am. I could be wrong. But being defensive, to me, is feeling the need to defend or explain your position on a given subject when being called on it. Defending one's believes is a noble thing imo. If you continue to feel the need to call out brokers/resellers/scalpers/season ticket holder who sell, I'll continue to appease you
You are a lost cause. When trying to rationalize your view you repeatedly come back time and time again to "you're a scalper...of course you'd be defensive."
I do enjoy defending my position....especially given my profession. I'm just surprised you don't enjoy defending/embracing the fact that you are a socialist.
I am a ticket broker. And I am proud of it. Since a scalper is a slang term for being a broker, I'm happy to embrace the term.
You are a socialist. Or at least you have very socialistic views. You choose not to embrace what you are.
We can keep having this debate. When it comes right down to it, I take pride in what I do. Anyone who takes pride in what they do and their beliefs, should be willing to defend their position when offered to debate the matter. I find the fact you continue to to use the "of course you'd be defensive" line, somewhat of a non issue. I suppose if I had your opinion on the subject, I'd leave it at, "we'll have to agree to disagree."
I'm ok with the fact that you feel the need to call me defensive. I am. I could be wrong. But being defensive, to me, is feeling the need to defend or explain your position on a given subject when being called on it. Defending one's believes is a noble thing imo. If you continue to feel the need to call out brokers/resellers/scalpers/season ticket holder who sell, I'll continue to appease you
Curious how you figure a guy arguing that a privately owned company, who's employees make millions of dollars, charges an astronomical markup on food/beer/shwag, sells access to its product directly to an open market of customers and should be able to also take in whatever secondary market profits are out there, is a socialist.
Curious how you figure a guy arguing that a privately owned company, who's employees make millions of dollars, charges an astronomical markup on food/beer/shwag, sells access to its product directly to an open market of customers and should be able to also take in whatever secondary market profits are out there, is a socialist.
Not going to lie. It's kind of funny.
We've already established the fact you find many things funny that I find to be inconsistant and mind boggling.
I wasn't sure you were a socialist till today. When I read your posts about the housing market and you blaming house flippers/investors for the housing collapse...and not the banks and greedy people who took out loans they couldn't afford, I was convinced. It made absolutely zero sense. It was then I realized you were anti capitalism.
Quote:
I understand why you're upset. You're a scalper and make what living you can off of a product you don't make or improve on before selling. At least a guy flipping a house cleans up the yard and paints the place
I don't think I ever responded to this statement as I intended to.
I have never implied, nor will I ever, that I fix anything up or do anything to tickets.
Whenever I 'm approached by anyone and asked about the business, I tell them the closest thing I can compare it to is being a stock broker or a day trader. It's all about speculative investing and timing. There is a lot to the business. How many tickets are available for a given game, how the team is playing, the weather, injuries, if the team has a reserve of tickets they will release in the day leading up to the game. These are all reasons you can't simply sit back and do nothing. You do have to stay on top of the market- just like a stock broker or day trader.
Something tells me you aren't a big fan of stock brokers or day traders, JMill? Or is it a more noble profession because they wear suits? I can wear a suit for you if you want? I'll even put a little lip stick on for ya if it helps. Just so long as you don' mistake me for one of your "guilty Vegas pleasures"
Curious how you figure a guy arguing that a privately owned company, who's employees make millions of dollars, charges an astronomical markup on food/beer/shwag, sells access to its product directly to an open market of customers and should be able to also take in whatever secondary market profits are out there, is a socialist.
Not going to lie. It's kind of funny.
Sorry, i was busy off watching the game. Nice to see they finally put together back to back W's. Some of us find it amusing that you are outraged and find it morally reprehensible that brokers/scalpers/whatever you want to call the profession engage in capitalism.
So, let me get this straight. You would prefer if the Bruins raised all of their prices up to market (which buyers are obviously willing to pay) rather than a 2nd/3rd/4th party profiting off of their investment in whatever tickets they purchase.....and further....you believe that this will not cause the same "poor fans" to be priced out of that market, because even though the prices will be the same, and the primary seller is the one profiting?
Did I get that correctly?
Or alternatively, did you just want to admit that you believe in Socialism, and everyone is entitled to go to the game, regardless of whether or not they can afford it?
One more: Does this mean you believe that Corporate Season ticket holders should give up their tickets because they are not...(ready Looch?) "Real Fans?" They are just entertaining clients and such who may just be there to conduct business or want to be at the hip place, even though they don't know Johnny Boychuk from a Nunchuck or Darth Quaider from Darth Vader....so they really shouldn't be allowed to own seats.....right?
Sorry, i was busy off watching the game. Nice to see they finally put together back to back W's. Some of us find it amusing that you are outraged and find it morally reprehensible that brokers/scalpers/whatever you want to call the profession engage in capitalism.
So, let me get this straight. You would prefer if the Bruins raised all of their prices up to market (which buyers are obviously willing to pay) rather than a 2nd/3rd/4th party profiting off of their investment in whatever tickets they purchase.....and further....you believe that this will not cause the same "poor fans" to be priced out of that market, because even though the prices will be the same, and the primary seller is the one profiting?
Did I get that correctly?
Or alternatively, did you just want to admit that you believe in Socialism, and everyone is entitled to go to the game, regardless of whether or not they can afford it?
One more: Does this mean you believe that Corporate Season ticket holders should give up their tickets because they are not...(ready Looch?) "Real Fans?" They are just entertaining clients and such who may just be there to conduct business or want to be at the hip place, even though they don't know Johnny Boychuk from a Nunchuck or Darth Quaider from Darth Vader....so they really shouldn't be allowed to own seats.....right?
That's a nope, nope and a nope.
The Bruins can set their prices and sell their tickets where they like- it's their product.
Don't think everyone is entitled to go to a game.
Corporate ticket holders can give tickets to whomever they like.
You guys keep coming up with these absurd straw men.
Think about it this way, if there were no more brokers and scalpers would the team and it's fans be better off? There'd be just as many tickets sold and prices to fans would be lower. I understand brokers would be out of business- so of course guys like Looch wouldn't like it- but what about the people supplying and using the product? Forget socialism, it's pure capitalism- all producers and consumers.
If there were no scalpers there would be virtually no tickets available. Do you think the people with Season tickets would just give them to random people when they have 100's of friends asking for them? You'd have to know a season ticket holder to get into a game, or be one of the few lucky ones who gets through on ticketmaster.
I personally think if the B's want to sell a ticket for $40 they should be able to say it's illegal for anyone to resell this for over $40(although I'm pretty certain they are in favor of the secondary market). However this would be virtually impossible. Also, as I mentioned earlier it would suck trying to get tickets to games because there wouldn't be any!
I'd rather pay 2-3 times face value for Red Sox tickets 4-5 times a year then pay for all 81 games up front. Let the scalper deal with getting rid of the rest of the games.
I've also had two events that I REALLY wanted to go to in my life, that I wouldn't have been able to if it weren't for scalpers. Did I pay a ton? Yes. But, if there were no scalpers, I wouldn't have gotten in, period.
If there were no scalpers there would be virtually no tickets available. Do you think the people with Season tickets would just give them to random people when they have 100's of friends asking for them? You'd have to know a season ticket holder to get into a game, or be one of the few lucky ones who gets through on ticketmaster.
I personally think if the B's want to sell a ticket for $40 they should be able to say it's illegal for anyone to resell this for over $40(although I'm pretty certain they are in favor of the secondary market). However this would be virtually impossible. Also, as I mentioned earlier it would suck trying to get tickets to games because there wouldn't be any!
I'd rather pay 2-3 times face value for Red Sox tickets 4-5 times a year then pay for all 81 games up front. Let the scalper deal with getting rid of the rest of the games.
I've also had two events that I REALLY wanted to go to in my life, that I wouldn't have been able to if it weren't for scalpers. Did I pay a ton? Yes. But, if there were no scalpers, I wouldn't have gotten in, period.
There would be just as many tickets as there are now. Fewer people would buy season tickets (the brokers would be out of the market) but those seats would be available as individual tickets. The lower the demand for season tickets, the lower their price falls and the more individual tickets are on the market, the lower their price falls. You're right that it would be almost impossible to enforce- hell, it's technically illegal right now- but that doesn't make it kosher.
Just because it says on the back of a ticket that they have the right to revoke it if you are buying with the intent to resell, does not make it illegal. It just means they can revoke your season tickets. It's perfectly legal in a lot of cases.
But, this will be the end of my messages on this subject. I think scalpers serve a great purpose, like I said, I'd rather pay a little more then have to buy a whole season or stand outside a venue with a finger in the air like I'm at a greatful dead concert for hours.
Just because it says on the back of a ticket that they have the right to revoke it if you are buying with the intent to resell, does not make it illegal. It just means they can revoke your season tickets. It's perfectly legal in a lot of cases.
But, this will be the end of my messages on this subject. I think scalpers serve a great purpose, like I said, I'd rather pay a little more then have to buy a whole season or stand outside a venue with a finger in the air like I'm at a greatful dead concert for hours.
It's not technically illegal because of what it says on the ticket. It's technically illegal because of what it says in the law. $2 + service charges (generally the cost of the procuring the ticket and delivering it to a buyer) are the only markups resellers are legally allowed to tack on in Massachusetts. The "service charge" is the loophole brokers use and it is almost impossible to enforce.
I'm done for now. Got to figure most everyone understands the lay of tha land at this point (unless they still see the spectre of communism haunting this thread).
Interesting point. I would tend to think that if there was no resale market, prices would be lower and more people would be able to afford season tickets. But because of the lower prices IMO the fans would still suck them all up (rather than brokers), and any true restriction on resale would probably create the same artificial supply limit, as STHs would only use them for themselves and their friends.
Many fans would rather have the whole season to guarantee the big games and playoffs, rather than have to work last minute to get tix to the games they choose. Thus, if they are eating/giving away the lesser games, they are actually still paying a premium for the games they wanted in the first place.
Think about it this way, if there were no more brokers and scalpers would the team and it's fans be better off? There'd be just as many tickets sold and prices to fans would be lower. I understand brokers would be out of business- so of course guys like Looch wouldn't like it- but what about the people supplying and using the product? Forget socialism, it's pure capitalism- all producers and consumers.
Question for you...let's say they ban resale across the country. And have a way to enforce it / keep a black market out....Do you honestly believe that the teams will bring their prices down rather than adjust upwards based on market data that is readily available?
The secondary market works for the teams. It pressures some people to buy more season tickets (more money up front to teams which equals guaranteed sales rather than individual games), it creates avenues of additional revenue for them (Ticket Exchange fees / cut of SH resales in MLB case), it creates additional artificial demand for their product (I can't get tix to XYZ event, it must be hot...gotta see that), and it keeps them from being the bad guy with the family unfriendly pricing (they love PR).
So, in the end, fans wouldn't really be better off IMO.
Question for you...let's say they ban resale across the country. And have a way to enforce it / keep a black market out....Do you honestly believe that the teams will bring their prices down rather than adjust upwards based on market data that is readily available?
The secondary market works for the teams. It pressures some people to buy more season tickets (more money up front to teams which equals guaranteed sales rather than individual games), it creates avenues of additional revenue for them (Ticket Exchange fees / cut of SH resales in MLB case), it creates additional artificial demand for their product (I can't get tix to XYZ event, it must be hot...gotta see that), and it keeps them from being the bad guy with the family unfriendly pricing (they love PR).
So, in the end, fans wouldn't really be better off IMO.
I don't think you'd see prices rise at a higher rate than they are right now. They already have the market data they could, and do, raise their prices anyway. And I'm not against a secondary market per se, just think that the team that should be collecting whatever profits are out there for their product.
