Pope Francis is coming to New York, and Cardinal Timothy Dolan is disturbed about ticket-scalping:
“Tickets for events with Pope Francis are distributed free [via lottery] for a reason — to enable as many New Yorkers as possible, including those of modest means, to be able to participate in the Holy Father’s visit to New York,” Cardinal Dolan, the archbishop of New York, said in a statement. “To attempt to resell the tickets and profit from his time in New York goes against everything Pope Francis stands for.”
So according to Cardinal Dolan, “everything Pope Francis stands for” consists of the proposition that for New Yorkers of modest means, nothing should take precedence over turning out to see Pope Francis — not groceries, not medicine, not car repairs, not any of the other things that people can buy with the proceeds from selling their tickets.
I doubt that Pope Francis is quite as egomaniacal as the Cardinal paints him. But apparently the Cardinal himself would rather see poor people cheering for the Pope than improving their lives.
I think you have this turned on its head. The Cardinal is not objecting to people improving their lives; he is objecting to people paying to see the Pope.
There may be something to what you say nevertheless, but it is the same things that can be said for legalizing prostitution, a conclusion which most people would not view as obvious.
You seem to be assuming that poor people are the ticket scalpers. I doubt it..
Roger:
You seem to be assuming that poor people are the ticket scalpers.
Not at all. Cardinal Dolan seems to be assuming this, since he asserts that ticket scalping will prevent poor people (or “people of modest means”) from seeing the Pope. This can happen only if poor people sell their tickets, so he is implicitly assuming that poor people are the scalpers.
If Dolan is right that poor people are the scalpers, then he is wrong to condemn them for scalping. If rich people are the scalpers, he’s still wrong. Instead of giving tickets away to rich people, the Church should be selling those tickets and giving the proceeds to the poor — if in fact their true concern is the welfare of the poor.
According to the article of NYT 80000 people are going to be able to watch the pope. If one wants to have people of different wealths there perhaps traditional queueing would be better.
“to enable as many New Yorkers as possible” to attend.
So, scalped tickets are not used?
@entirelyuseless 1
Indeed. That’s why examples like this are good: to help the benighted understand that of course prostitution should be legal. If it’s legal to do why shouldn’t it be legal to do for money? All a prohibition does is reduce the choices available to those who need money and have something they can earn it with.
You seem to imply that Steve’s argument has a problem because it’s conclusion is not one “which most people would not view as obvious.” But that’s not a flaw in the argument is it? Perhaps what people find obvious is the problem. Especially if they formed that conclusion *before* hearing the argument.
I never really understood by big stadium bands do not sell their tickets for more. If you can get several times the face value why not let that go to the band instead of scalpers? I assume it is because they would get bad press, and may see their popularity fall, and ultimately make less money as nobody wanted to see the money grubbing bastards, however good the music.
I can understand the pope not wising to be seen as maximising cash revenue, but some big bands?
Which all complicates the issue. When you sell a ticket, you are putting reputation on the line. Madonna could get way more money from a few gigs, but she has to weigh up possible long term damage to future revenues. There is no hard and fast rule when it comes to ensuring future popularity, but being seen as too interested in money is sure to reduce your popularity to some extent.
The study about college basketball tickets by Dan Ariely (predictably irrational) was interesting and somewhat related. To get tickets for a popular game students had to camp out for 10 days, a very significant investment of time. Even then, that only got you to the lottery. Some successful lottery entrants got tickets, others did not. The authors approached both winners and losers of the lottery, offering to either buy their ticket or sell them a ticket. Since both had invested the same considerable effort to get to the lottery phase, one might expect them to value the tickets the same. Those with tickets were not prepared to sell them for large sums. Those without were not prepared to offer very much at all for a ticket.
“All a prohibition does is reduce the choices available to those who need money and have something they can earn it with.”
A prohibition reduces the choices available, but it also changes the incentives. The change in incentives may change the balance of situations in such a way that people have more choice overall, even if they have less (or equal) choice in each specific situation.
Steve,
Provocative post, as usual, but let’s make it interesting by tweaking the situation…
Suppose I get a debate with Krugman at the next FreedomFest, and I want to keep it classy and fair. (I don’t want the crowd cheering my every point and booing Krugman after each sentence.) So we reserve half the seats for the normal FreedomFest crowd, and let Krugman distribute the other half via a lottery the NYT runs on his blog for his readers who register.
Then most of his readers decide they don’t care what some bald Austrian says, so they sell their tickets to libertarian groupies who want to see me blow up Krugman’s Keynesian confusions.
Would it be egomaniacal of me to complain about Krugman’s fans, “Guys, c’mon. *We* could’ve sold the tickets for money and kept it ourselves. We were trying to do you a favor by letting you come for free, to keep this a civil and evenhanded debate. By you selling your tickets to Rothbardians, this defeats the whole purpose of the event.”
Steve, your argument assumes facts not in evidence, i.e.: that it’s
the poor who are acquiring and selling tickets. The more likely
scenario is that the non-poor who do this king of thing all the time
are acquiring the tickets and selling them.
The Cardinal is objecting to this practice, as that makes the
tickets unavailable to the poor, who lack the practiced, precision
timing to get tickets before they’re snapped up by scalpers.
And Harold @7: Steve covered the rock concert ticket problem in
“Armchair Economist”.
Ron: See my reply to Roger.
To repeat the salient points: 1) It is Cardinal Dolan’s argument, not mine, that assumes it’s the poor who are scalping tickets, because it is Cardinal Dolan, not me, who says that the scalping is keeping poor people away from the event. This can be true only if he believes poor people are doing the scalping. 2) If Cardinal Dolan’s assumption is right, my argument stands. 3) If Cardinal Dolan’s assumption is wrong, then his position is even less defensible — in that case the Church *gave away tickets to the rich* instead of selling the tickets itself and giving the proceeds to the poor.
Bob Murphy: Your argument might carry some weight if there had been any attempt on the Church’s part to give these tickets to a certain class of people, as opposed to a completely random lottery.
Oh, okay, you might say that they wanted to get *some* poor people there and the random lottery was the best way to do it (because of course there’s no way to identify poor people — well, let’s grant that for the sake of argument).
But I think your analogy still fails, because in the scenario you painted, it’s *you* (the event organizer) who is hurt by scalping, not the scalpers or scalpees — so to adopt your argument, Dolan has to claim he cares about what’s good for the Church, not what’s good for the poor. Does he want to go there?
@Bob Murphy
The gravimen of your hypothetical complaint is that the Keynesians aren’t attending, not that they are profiting from selling the tickets. So the analogy you are making seems to be, “Well poor people, we really wanted you to hear the Pope, not buy food, shelter, and clothing. You’ve kinda ruined the event.” I don’t see a counter to Steve’s point there.
@Steve: “This can happen only if poor people sell their tickets”
No, maybe rich people are signing up for free tickets so they can scalp them. If scalping were not possible, then the rich scalpers would not bother signing up for the tickets, and poor people would.
It seems likely to me that the scalping is being done by professional scalpers, not poor people.
Roger:
No, maybe rich people are signing up for free tickets so they can scalp them.
Maybe. But:
a) If the Church wants to allocate the tickets by lottery to the poor, not the rich, I expect it’s easy enough to do that. (E.g. you can sign up only if you live in a low-income zip code, or only if you present your food stamp card).
and b) (the main point): If the Church cares about the poor, they sell the tickets to the highest bidders and give the proceeds to the poor. Any other allocation scheme prioritizes something else over helping the poor.
Steve wrote:
If the Church cares about the poor, they sell the tickets to the highest bidders and give the proceeds to the poor. Any other allocation scheme prioritizes something else over helping the poor.
It’s almost like these Catholics think there is something more important people need to hear about besides money.
Last one and I’ll stop:
So I’m at a bar and this depressed guy starts telling me his sad story. Three days earlier, he had gotten down on one knee and proposed to his girlfriend. She said yes and put on the ring he gave her.
Then he found out the next day she had sold it on e-bay. For some reason this bothered him.
As you can imagine, I had to walk away from this egomaniac, who had the audacity to claim that he loved this woman.
Ron # 10. I said I never understood about rock concert pricing, although I probably never even thought about it until I read “The Armchair Economist”. However, since then I have wondered about it, but it is so long since I read the holy text that I can’t remember what was said about it.
#16 – The poor people themselves do not think the message is more important than cash.
#17. Interesting story. The protagonist was clearly not an economist.
Is this a case of the “social” crossing over to the “financial”, rather like paying your mother for dinner? Or rather like the book token problem – cash is always better, yet people still like to give and receive them.
Do economists always assume that there is no value in social signalling? Or that doing so is egomaniacal?
“If the Church cares about the poor, they sell the tickets to the highest bidders and give the proceeds to the poor. Any other allocation scheme prioritizes something else over helping the poor.” Steve, why can’t the Church both give tickets to the poor and give money to the people. What is wrong with the Church saying “Some of our activities are for people’s spiritual benefit, and some of our activities are for people’s material benefit.”?
Debates between Steve Landsburg and Bob Murphy are among the best. Both are sharp and logical, both make good points, and both respect each other. It’s refreshing.
I found myself wavering from Steve’s point when I read Bob’s analogy with the guy who gave the woman the diamond ring. Bob is right to claim (implicitly) that the guy who bemoans his fate is not an egomaniac. But notice that it’s HIS fate he bemoans, not the fate of the woman. It’s not clear from the quote what Dolan’s particular concern is: is it that the woman (in the analogy) is worse off or is that the guy (in the analogy) is worse off. If it’s the guy (the Church and the Pope), then Bob is right. If it’s the woman (the poor people who would sell the tickets), then Steve is right.
“1) It is Cardinal Dolan’s argument, not mine, that assumes it’s the poor who are scalping tickets, because it is Cardinal Dolan, not me, who says that the scalping is keeping poor people away from the event. This can be true only if he believes poor people are doing the scalping. ”
This contention is incredible! Hasn’t it occurred to you that by scalpers taking the free tickets offered, they are preventing other people (like the poor) who might have taken those tickets instead, from attending?! And I’d say this is quite obviously what Dolan was talking about.
@David R Henderson
Dolan says ““Tickets … are distributed free … to enable as many New Yorkers as possible, including those of modest means, to be able to participate”. He seems then to be complaining either that fewer people participate, which is absurd since it implies scalped tickets are not used, or that fewer “of modest means” do so. So to Dolan the sale by “those of modest means” is the problem.
@Bob Murphy
Had your bar-room interlocutor selected a woman at random to give the ring then your analogy would be stronger. But if your point is that *accepting the ticket implies an agreement to attend*, as accepting the ring implies an agreement to wed, then I still don’t think you have a case against Steve. You could well argue that prospective scalpers should decline the offered ticket because they won’t observe the implicit contract, and perhaps they should. But then don’t we arrive at the second tine of Landsburg’s Fork: that the church should either off the poor parishioner who would receive that ticket (instead of the scalper) a choice of the scalping value or the ticket?
@Gene Callahan 22
Yes it has occurred to Steve, since he mentioned it.
“in that case the Church *gave away tickets to the rich* instead of selling the tickets itself and giving the proceeds to the poor.”
@Ken B “He seems then to be complaining either that fewer people participate, which is absurd since it implies scalped tickets are not used, or that fewer “of modest means” do so. So to Dolan the sale by “those of modest means” is the problem.” Ken B, I agree that Dolan is complaining about the fact that fewer people of modest men’s will participate. But why does that imply that he’s worried about scalping by poor people? Rich people could sign up for the tickets just so they could scalp it.
@Ken B “But if your point is that *accepting the ticket implies an agreement to attend*, as accepting the ring implies an agreement to wed, then I still don’t think you have a case against Steve.” I don’t think that’s Bob’s point. I think his point is that just as there is a non-financial benefit to wearing the ring, there’s a non-financial benefit to seeing the Pope.
@Keshav 26:
But no-one denies that. Steve’s point isn’t that the poor won’t benefit from hearing the Pope, it’s that they are being criticized for preferring some other benefit. The complaint is they are trading that benefit for another. Steve is teasing out the implications of that complaint.
@Keshav 25:
That could be a small secondary effect I agree, and perhaps there are scalp-happy dentists and stock-brokers sucking up a few tickets. But doesn’t this fall under the rubric of my implied promise to attend? And couldn’t the church decide to exclude the rich from the lottery, sell them tickets, and donate to the poor — Steve’s second tine.
@Keshav
Here’s a plan. The church designates everyone as poor or rich.
(Rich is say making over $N per year).
People sign up for the lottery. Fraction f of those signed up are rich.
The church offers fraction f for sale and holds a lottery amongst the poor of the remaining tickets.
Then the proceeds of the sale are distributed to the poor.
Now some of the poor scalp their tickets.
Writing from vacation near the Vatican…
… based on not a few of the statements the pope has made on the subject of liberal markets and based on the evidence here in Rome of past popes’ egos, I have little doubt Dolan is representing him fairly. Jorge Mario most likely sincerely believes a non-marketable lottery is the most equitable way of staving off Mammom and fulfilling the needs of the faithful.
Let us not forget that the pope’s power over church’s bureaucracy is unchecked; if he wanted to allow people to sell the tickets or target only the needy or expand the venue where he’s being seen or appear in public with no tickets, or in Steve’s view, to sell the tickets to the rich and give the proceeds to the poor, he could do it. Arguably, any of these would be more poor-friendly than what Dolan is suggesting he believes, which makes me think he is just egomaniacal…
Here’s the point I think none of Steve’s critics are addressing. The poor person faces the choice between the ticket, or the proceeds of the sale of the ticket. Dolan’s words criticize the poor for preferring the proceeds. This is true because he included the poor scalpers in his condemnation. (As Steve notes, his actually wording specifically focuses on the poor.) It is true because the church gave tickets to the rich rather than selling the tickets and offering the poor the option.
Sure there’s a non-financial benefit to seeing the pope…and the presumption that this is more valuable to a poor person than food, medicine etc. is precisely what is being called (a bit hyperbolically) “egomaniacal” here.
My take on the bar analogy is that if you really love the girl, and she’s poor, shouldn’t improving her material position make you happy, whether or not she wishes to marry you? “But she can only be truly happy with me” does sound a bit self-absorbed.
I presume the real issue is simply that cardinals aren’t economists and don’t always fully grasp the implications of how they opine on the subject (e.g. I believe this pope has been particularly critical of capitalism). Whatever one’s view on who should attend the event, giving tickets away to rich people is a lost opportunity to help poor people.
#8 Ken Aromdee – can you provide an example?
Bob Murphy wrote:
“It’s almost like these Catholics think there is something more important people need to hear about besides money.”
No. It’s almost like these Catholics think there is something more important people need to hear than to have money.
And that’s the point. Dolan is criticizing them for preferring something else other than a sermon
More than just scalpers have raised the church’s ire. WSJ:
“On the eve of Pope Francis’s arrival in the U.S., the Vatican has taken offense at the Obama administration’s decision to invite to the pope’s welcome ceremony transgender activists, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop and an activist nun who leads a group criticized by the Vatican for its silence on abortion and euthanasia.”
I mention this as it seems inconsistent with the the goal of as many as possible seeing the pope. It also seems, to refer to Bob Murphy’s snark in 16, that the church believes those listed in particular are in want of its message, yet would deny it to them.
Ken B., Landsburg’s comment (which was just a comment, and not in the original post!) does not show at all that he gets what is going on. The Church didn’t “give” tickets to anyone: there was a lottery. The lottery was designed so that everyone *who wants to attend* has an equal shot at getting in, whatever their income. But apparently many people who *didn’t want to attend* signed up for the lottery with the intention of selling the tickets, instead of attending. No one “decided” to give the tickets to the rich OR the poor: that is not how LOTTERIES work, you know?
When someone offers you a gift (free ticket) under certain conditions (you attend) it is wrong to accept the gift but not the conditions. Landsburg (and you) have apparently completely missed this point. Landsburg’s point would only make sense if the Church had hand-picked a number of poor people and then sent them tickets whether they asked for them or not. At the point, the poor person, opening their mail and asking themselves, “What the f*&k is this?” would be perfectly justified in selling the ticket.
And quite obviously, if some who wanted to attend were poor, but lost in the lottery to scalpers, then some poor people are not attending not because they scalped their tickets, but becaquse they didn’t win tickets in the first place. Landsburg’s contention that “the only way” scalping is blocking the poor from attending is if the poor are doing the scalping is just flat out wrong.
The Pope wanted to meet with a large random sample of the public wanting to see him, including the poor. The scalping has thwarted that plan. Why is that hard to understand?
Bob’s analogy is amusing. When a man gives a ring, he is not transferring the monetary value to her account, unilaterally. He is making a deal, and she broke it by selling the ring on Ebay. Likewise the scalpers are breaking the implied wishes of the Pope.
Gene Callahan wrote:
“When someone offers you a gift (free ticket) under certain conditions (you attend) it is wrong to accept the gift but not the conditions. Landsburg (and you) have apparently completely missed this point. ”
Nonsense. I wrote “But if your point is that *accepting the ticket implies an agreement to attend*, as accepting the ring implies an agreement to wed, then I still don’t think you have a case against Steve. You could well argue that prospective scalpers should decline the offered ticket because they won’t observe the implicit contract, and perhaps they should.” and later I wrote “perhaps there are scalp-happy dentists and stock-brokers sucking up a few tickets. But doesn’t this fall under the rubric of my implied promise to attend?”
@Gene #34
this is absolutely right. even if you dont believe in catholicism, this makes sense.
@Gene Callahan 34
As for your substantial claim, you concede ” The lottery was designed so that everyone *who wants to attend* has an equal shot at getting in, whatever their income.”
But then you must agree that the church gave tickets to the rich, rather than selling them and donating the proceeds. Anyway see comment 28 for a crisper hypothetical.
It’s just peculiar to say “The Church didn’t “give” tickets to anyone” I think. They weren’t sold, they didn’t materialize from thin air. The church gave them away to the raffle winners.
@Roger 36
Thank you for conceding the argument! “The pope wanted”, not the ticket holder wanted. Dolan criticized the ticket holder for doing what he himself wanted, rather than what the pope wanted. Sounds suspiciously like the Cardinal “would rather see poor people cheering for the Pope than improving their lives.”
Bishops (and Cardinals and Popes) are very smart, very well educated men. They are generally not trained in economics. The economics they are trained in may well be Keynesian. I encountered this problem in college where the “Christian” thing to do was to give away your work (thus offering false and misleading information to the market). Steve addresses exactly this problem in:
http://www.thebigquestions.com/2015/07/29/this-would-be-a-great-illustration-of-comparative-advantage-if-it-werent-such-a-great-illustration-of-absolute-advantage/
I would like to commend the effort I am seeing here to not confuse “The Church” with what certain Church spokesmen are saying (albeit in the name of the Church) since, as any half-trained Catholic high-school student can attest, none of the statements being made by either the Vatican or Bishop Dolan demand the affirmation of their flock.
@Ken B: Yes, the event is being organized to satisfy the wishes of the Pope, not the ticket scalpers.
Perhaps you think that people should be working to monetarily improve their lives on Sunday, instead of attending church. I do not think the Pope wants your advice.
There’s an odd feel to some of the comments here. Steve’s argument is a fork or dilemma, that is “an argument forcing an opponent to choose either of two unfavorable alternatives”. He does not claim that either or both alternatives are the case, only that Dolan’s words must imply one of the cases.
Many comments seem to me to not grasp the fact the argument is a dilemma. (I won’t embarass Roger by naming him.)
Here is the dilemma again.
If the tickets were given to the poor then …
If the tickets were given to the non-poor then …
Does anyone deny that? (Aside from Gene denying the tickets were given at all.)
And neither case reflects well on Dolan in the light of his comments, but in different ways.
Now let’s consider one of the comments that seems to miss the structure of the argument, #36
“The Pope wanted to meet with a large random sample of the public wanting to see him, including the poor. The scalping has thwarted that plan.”
How might sclaping thwart the plan? In two ways. The poor sell their tickets (see tine 1) or they are crowded out by hordes of scalpers signing up for the lottery. That second case could have been averted by selling tickets to raise donations; so now tine 2. Tine 1 or tine 2; the comment misses the nature of the dilemma.
Plus it’s piffle. You don’t think of the thousands in the park that there will still be a mix of rich and poor?
No plan was thwarted. Will was thwarted perhaps. Is complaining about that creditable to either Dolan or the Pope?
I am just poking my head in here to say that I endorse everything Ken B is saying.
@Ken B “How might sclaping thwart the plan? In two ways. The poor sell their tickets (see tine 1) or they are crowded out by hordes of scalpers signing up for the lottery. That second case could have been averted by selling tickets to raise donations; so now tine 2.” I think the second case is clearly what Dolan had in mind. And selling the tickets to raise donations would thwart the plan of the Pope seeing a random sample of the people who want to see the Pope, because the sample would be skewed to the rich.
Now as to Steve’s argument that selling the tickets and donating the proceeds to the poor would be a more moral course of action, I think it’s perfectly sensible for the Church to say “Some of our actions are for the spiritual benefit of people, and some of our actions are for their material benefit. It is better if we give away tickets by lottery and insist that they not be sold, and help the poor by some other means, rather than helping the poor through selling the tickets, which would deprive many poor people of the spiritual benefit of seeing the Pope.”
By the way, in all this I am assuming that Catholics see some spiritual benefit in seeing the Pope. Is this true? In Hinduism we believe that the mere sight of certain religious figures confers spiritual benefit, but I don’t know whether Christians share this belief.
Ken, the idea that giving tickets to lottery winners is the same as giving them to the rich is rubbish. I put some children’s books out on the curb. I was giving them to *anyone who walks by*. If one of those people *happened* to be a pedophile who gets off on kids’ books, it would be a complete smear to mischaracterize what I had done as “giving books to pedophiles.”
And the fact Landsburg is “endorsing” this nonsense confirms that this whole post is just a way to take a swipe at the Church.
For those who are too dull, or much more likely, too filled with animosity, to see what is wrong with the original post:
1) I am having a fancy dinner party. I have 100 friends, but only room for 10. I don’t want to charge them, so I say, “I am inviting you all, but we have to have a lottery because there just isn’t enough room in my apartment. So if you want to attend, I will put your name in the drawing.”
2) I have the drawing, and Ben K. wins a seat.
3) The next day, I see Ben K. on EBay: “$100 ticket to gourmet meal available.”
4) I complain to Ben: “This is not why I gave away the seats for free!”
5) S. Landsburg writes a post, saying how I really don’t care for Ben’s well being!
And when I say, “Ben, you’ve prevented one of my other friends from coming,” Landsburg claims “That could only be true if the other friend was the one scalping the ticket”!!
Since I unwittingly brought a bunch of people onto this thread, let me just make sure my own position is clear. I certainly agree that the average person, let alone Church officials, hasn’t thought through the logic of markets as much as Steve, and that they might therefore say things that actually don’t hold up under scrutiny.
My objection to this post was the harsh condemnation of the Cardinal when I don’t think “normal” people would have received the same, from Steve (or Ken B. etc.).
There are all sorts of examples where it would be completely bizarre for someone to auction off for money something that the original donor had given, and where the original donor would not be an egomaniac or a hypocrite for objecting to such an auctioning off.
Here is the dilemma again.
If the tickets were given to the poor then …
If the tickets were given to the non-poor then …
Does anyone deny that? (Aside from Gene denying the tickets were given at all.)”
Ken B.,
Yes, I deny that. Gene Callahan is exactly correct in his critique of Steve, other than the “tickets not given away” part. I have no desire to defend Dolan; if you don’t want tickets scalped, don’t give them away. Just don’t have tickets at all.
But, Steve’s dilemma hinges on a misunderstanding of what Dolan is thinking. Dolan wants to give away tickets to people regardless of their economic means. He believes that scalpers are likely not poor and will sell to the highest bidder, which are also likely not poor. So the group of those who received tickets will be those who want to go themselves (mix of rich and poor) and those who want to sell (rich only). This skews the ticket distribution to the wealthy, contrary to intention.
Why does Steve’s dilemma fail? If the tickets were given to the poor, that’s fine. They’re not the scalpers (by Dolan’s assumption). If the tickets were given to the rich scalpers who crowded out the poor, selling the tickets and giving the proceeds to the poor would not help because the poor would receive the money AFTER the tickets are already sold. Yes, the poor would have the money for food and rent, but this scheme would still favor the rich for the audience.
The only viable solution, as I said, is not to have tickets at all. Presumably, the archdiocese didn’t go that route in an attempt to avoid the chaos and hard feelings of people coming but not getting in.
Steve,
I hate to say it, but your arguments sound like one non sequitor after another.
“apparently the Cardinal himself would rather see poor people cheering for the Pope than improving their lives. ”
No, the Cardinal assumes (rightly or wrongly) that scalpers tend to be wealthy, so the poor miss out both on improving their lives and seeing the Pope.
“he asserts that ticket scalping will prevent poor people (or “people of modest means”) from seeing the Pope. This can happen only if poor people sell their tickets, so he is implicitly assuming that poor people are the scalpers.”
No, another option is that wealthy scalpers get tickets that would have gone to the poor. Since the poor can’t afford to buy from the scalpers, they are prevented from going.
“Instead of giving tickets away to rich people, the Church should be selling those tickets and giving the proceeds to the poor — if in fact their true concern is the welfare of the poor.”
No, Dolan’s true concern is for people to be able to see the Pope regardless of their economic status. Selling the tickets and giving the money to the poor does nothing to help them see the Pope.
“in the scenario you painted, it’s *you* (the event organizer) who is hurt by scalping, not the scalpers or scalpees”
How is Bob (the event organizer) hurt? He wanted to help Krugman by having some of his supporters there. Some of the Krugman scalpers hurt Krugman by skewing the audience toward Rothbardians AND deprived their fellow believers of going in support of Krugman.
” If the Church cares about the poor, they sell the tickets to the highest bidders and give the proceeds to the poor. Any other allocation scheme prioritizes something else over helping the poor.”
Again, this doesn’t help the poor see the Pope, which is the whole point.
Let me just say that this post does not represent your finest hour.
@Keshav 45
Catholics do, but they deny it. (The form of denial is the doctrine of intercession.)
You really believe the intent was a random distribution of thousands of New Yorkers, using the ability to sign up for the lottery to define the sampled population? Pull the other one. You really believe Dolan’s complaint is “oh no, kurtosis in my sample!”?
Gene(47) explains well the fallacy of Steve, Ken B, and others. Dolan’s statement is completely reasonable.
And by the way, I’m sure if one of the scalpers is a poor person who had planned to attend, but had a child suddenly fall ill and so needed the money, that Dolan would say, “Of course, in such cases, re-selling one’s ticket is fine.”
“No, another option is that wealthy scalpers get tickets that would have gone to the poor. Since the poor can’t afford to buy from the scalpers, they are prevented from going.”
Yes, Brian, I am 99.99999% certain that THIS was what Dolan was talking about in terms of “preventing the poor from attending.” (As a good, obedient Bayesian, I am never 100% certain.)
“There are all sorts of examples where it would be completely bizarre for someone to auction off for money something that the original donor had given, and where the original donor would not be an egomaniac or a hypocrite for objecting to such an auctioning off.”
Right you are, Bob M.: I devised just such an example with my dinner party. I do, in fact, LOVE cooking for my friends and family, and if I held a lottery so I could invite “everyone” despite limited seating, I would be stunned if one of my friends who had won a ticket was auctioning it off on EBay.
By the way, when Bob M. says he “unintentionally” brought people into this thread, he means that when he wrote to me: “Gene I need you to go jump on Steve L.’s a&s,” he was in a condition of Knightian uncertainty as to what I would do in response.
:-)
Yes, Gene, I think that you are correct. Ken B talks about the scalpers being offered tickets. No, the tickets were offered to people who wanted to see the Pope, not scalpers. The scalpers are just leeches who figured out how to cheat the system, and are probably not even Catholic.
Steve, just to be clear, when you endorse Ken B.’s position on this, are you also in agreement with #52 when he writes:
You really believe the intent was a random distribution of thousands of New Yorkers, using the ability to sign up for the lottery to define the sampled population? Pull the other one. You really believe Dolan’s complaint is “oh no, kurtosis in my sample!”?
They asked people to sign up for a lottery of the tickets, they handed the tickets out for free, then when some people sold their tickets to the highest bidder, the Church complained that this violated the intent to let a distribution of people come, regardless of their economic means.
And Ken B. is actually sputtering at Keshav for daring to think that maybe, the Church actually was trying to have a random distribution of people come, regardless of their economic means? To the point that Keshav’s statement is worthy of ridicule–for repeating what the officials actually said was their motivation, and looking at their actual actions which are totally consistent with such a view?
Hang on a second. Steve, what do *you* think is the real reason for them to complain about the scalping? I mean, it’s not that they are slapping their foreheads and thinking, “Crap, *we* could’ve charged admission and earned millions of dollars. Why didn’t we think of it? Selling tickets for money–who knew?”
Let’s stipulate that these Church officials have nothing but contempt for their fellow man, and that they are deep down horrible people.
Are you thinking that they believe poor people tend to cheer more loudly than rich people? I think that’s a necessary component in your worldview. Otherwise these complaints make no sense.
Oh wait, let’s be more specific:
Do you think they believe that poor people who would rather sell their ticket cheer more loudly than rich people who would gladly buy the ticket?
@Ken B “You really believe the intent was a random distribution of thousands of New Yorkers, using the ability to sign up for the lottery to define the sampled population? Pull the other one. You really believe Dolan’s complaint is “oh no, kurtosis in my sample!”?” Ken B, Dolan doesn’t want a random sample as an end goal, just as a means to an end. His goal is to give everyone who wants to see the Pope an equal chance of seeing him. (Do Catholics capitalize “Him”?) By selling the tickets, rich people would have a higher chance of seeing the Pope than poor people.
@Bob “Let’s stipulate that these Church officials have nothing but contempt for their fellow man, and that they are deep down horrible people. Are you thinking that they believe poor people tend to cheer more loudly than rich people? I think that’s a necessary component in your worldview. Otherwise these complaints make no sense.” I apologize for criticizing you right after you defended me, but I don’t think you’re correctly understanding Steve’s views. Steve isn’t saying “The Church is doing this instead of this, which proves how evil they are.” He’s saying that their actions are not the best way to serve what he assumes their goals really are.
This goes back to a point Steve has been making for years, which is that if you want to be generous to someone, you should give them money rather than doing other things like paying for their healthcare, because then the other person gets to use the money for the thing that maximizes their own preferences. In fact, how Steve first got onto the political spotlight was with his column “Do the poor deserve life support?”, where he argued that keeping poor people on life support isn’t really being generous, because “there is nothing particularly compassionate about giving ventilator insurance to a person who really feels a more urgent need for milk or eggs.”:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/01/do_the_poor_deserve_life_support.html
So in this context, Steve is saying that it’s better to give the poor money, rather than giving them a ticket and preventing them from selling it. Because if they prefer a 100 dollars worth of groceries to seeing the Pope, the Pope shouldn’t insist on them seeing him. (Note that I don’t agree with Steve’s utilitarian views on altruism, I’m just explaining them.)
@Keshav: “Steve is saying that it’s better to give the poor money”
No, he is saying that it is better to give scalpers money than to give poor people an opportunity to see the Pope. Better according to his personal utilitarian views, I guess, but I do not think that the Pope would agree.
@Rger “No, he is saying that it is better to give scalpers money than to give poor people an opportunity to see the Pope. Better according to his personal utilitarian views, I guess, but I do not think that the Pope would agree.” I don’t agree with Steve’s utilitarian views either, but let’s not misrepresent those views. What he’s saying is that if poor people are the ones who would be scalping, then it’s better to let them scalp so that they can use money to better their lives in other ways if they so choose. And if rich people are the ones who would be scalping, then he’s saying it’s better to sell the tickets and use the proceeds to donate to the poor, rather than give poor people tickets to see the Pope which they may value less than (say) a hundred dollar check.
But yeah, it may better according to his personal utilitarian views, but presumably the Pope doesn’t share those views.
Roger 64
This comment so badly distorts what has been said it makes me question whether you are even paying attention.
Keshav 62
Only if the poor sold tickets to the rich. If it’s rich selling to rich that has no effect on the poor attending. So in that hypothetical Dolan is criticizing the poor for selling the tickets, tine 1.
Bob Murphy 59
Yes, the notion that enough tickets were sold by scalpers to significantly affect whether the crowd was a random sample is ridiculous. They are talking about tens of thousands of attendees. How many tickets are there on eBay.
And you are trying to have it both ways. Either I am spluttering with rage or I am sardonically mocking, but I can hardly be doing both at the same time. Which does the mention of kurtosis suggest you?
Gene 47
This at least is a coherent argument. But it is a bad analogy. You don’t present the dinner as a benefit you are giving Ben but as a social occassion where Ben is by hypothesis a friend. Let’s say you are offering a meal to anyone in the Bronx who needs or wants a meal. Now a poor man wins the ticket, but sells it, preferring to eat on two days rather than just one.
I grant, as I have above, the crowding out effect (as has Steve) but I dispute in the pope case that it can have a huge effect. And in any event it runs into tine 2. The church has a legitimate complaint against a man who signs up for the lottery just to scalp. But then if the church was willing to let the rich purchaser attend, and knew that opportunity existed, why not sell to him directly and donate the proceeds?
Brian 50
Well this is interesting. You are either denying that the law of excluded middle or that the tickets were given away. Which?
Note that this is not about whether Dolan was right or not. I asked about a very specific part of the discussion, does anyone deny the two cases, to help separate issues.
@Ken B “Only if the poor sold tickets to the rich. If it’s rich selling to rich that has no effect on the poor attending. So in that hypothetical Dolan is criticizing the poor for selling the tickets, tine 1.” Didn’t we just go through this? I said Dolan is concerned the rich selling tickets. And it does affect the attendance of the poor, if a lot of rich people who aren’t interested in seeing the Pope sign up in order to scalp, thereby decreasing the chances of a poor person getting a ticket.
@Ken B So I think we’re firmly in tine 2. And my response to Steve’s argument in tine 2 is what I said in comment #45:
“Now as to Steve’s argument that selling the tickets and donating the proceeds to the poor would be a more moral course of action, I think it’s perfectly sensible for the Church to say “Some of our actions are for the spiritual benefit of people, and some of our actions are for their material benefit. It is better if we give away tickets by lottery and insist that they not be sold, and help the poor by some other means, rather than helping the poor through selling the tickets, which would deprive many poor people of the spiritual benefit of seeing the Pope.””
I think I see what has gone wrong, and where some of the confusion comes from. Many of Steve’s critics believe that Steve and I are defending scalpers. This is not so. Let me repeat that because it’s important point. We are not defending scalpers. We are only defending poor scalpers. That is why the argument is phrased as a very precise dilemma.
Let us go through it carefully to see why this is so. Consider a particular ticket which is scalped, say ticket 15647. Dolan criticizes the person who sells this ticket. There are two cases. In the first case the person who sold the ticket is too poor to attend unless he is given a free ticket. Dolan condemns this poor person for selling the ticket. Steve and I believe this reflects poorly on Dolan. We are implicitly defending the poor scalper here.
But consider the second case, where the person who sells the ticket is able to afford to attend. Dolan also criticizes this person. Many here seem to think that Steve and I are defending the scalper but we are not. Our argument does not concern itself with the scalper so our argument works even if we condemn the scalper here, even if we stipulate that he is a worse person than John Wayne Gacy. The second fork of the dilemma observes that in this second case the church gave ticket 15647 to affluent person, allowing him to sell it to another rich person, rather than selling the ticket on its own to either of those same two persons and donating to donate to help the poor. We believe that reflects poorly on the Catholic church. Neither that conclusion nor that value judgment depends in any way upon approving the behavior of the rich scalper.
The argument is phrased as a dilemma because completely different aspects condemn the church in completely different ways in the two cases.
@Ken B Was that comment addressed to me or other commenters? Because I don’t think I’m suffering from that particular confusion. I think that both (1) the Church allowing rich scalpels to scalp, and (2) the Church selling the tickets and donating the money to the poor, are poor ways (no pun intended) of serving the Church’s goals. Holding a lottery to give everyone who want to see the Pope an equal chance of doing so, while donating money to the poor by other means, seems like a better decision to me than either (1) or (2).
Keshav
At others.
But I tried to include our disagreement in one respect.
If you look at your 71 you seem to deny Dolan is criticizing the poor scalper. I think he is, which is why I noted he flatly condemns the seller of ticket 15647, which means condemning even the poor seller.
I think your 72 is anticipated by my sharpened hypothetical about the fractional lottery.
I think our disagreement is fundamentally about the value judgment I make at the end of tine 2. I think in light of the church’s pretensions to moral leadership, its claim of papal infallibillity, and the criticism of the poor in Dolan’s remarks that it’s reasonable to note its failings.
@Ken B “I think he is, which is why I noted he flatly condemns the seller of ticket 15647, which means condemning even the poor seller.” Well, what he believes that only rich people are scalping tickets? Then condemning the selling of ticket 15647 would make perfect, the only way it’s getting sold is if it’s in the hands of a rich person.
“I think your 72 is anticipated by my sharpened hypothetical about the fractional lottery.” Well, your fractional lottery might work if seeing a mix of rich people and poor people were the end goal. But it doesn’t work if the goal is to give everyone who wants to see the Pope, regardless of income, an equal chance of seeing him.
Ken B.
No, I am not denying the law of the excluded middle. Yes, “ticket given to the poor” and “ticket given to the rich” exhaust all possibilities. What I deny are the conclusions you are drawing from these two possibilities.
You say “In the first case the person who sold the ticket is too poor to attend unless he is given a free ticket. Dolan condemns this poor person for selling the ticket. Steve and I believe this reflects poorly on Dolan.”
and then
“But consider the second case, where the person who sells the ticket is able to afford to attend. Dolan also criticizes this person….The second fork of the dilemma observes that in this second case the church gave ticket 15647 to affluent person, allowing him to sell it to another rich person, rather than selling the ticket on its own to either of those same two persons and donating to donate to help the poor. We believe that reflects poorly on the Catholic church.”
First of all, Dolan is not criticizing either poor or rich; he is criticizing anyone who signed up for the lottery WITHOUT THE INTENTION OF GOING. The purpose of the lottery was to provide access for those who want to see the Pope regardless of their ability to pay. This was Bob Murphy’s point all along. So why the criticism by Dolan?
Dolan expects the lottery to consist of those who want to go. Instead, scalpers (both rich and poor) have split the lottery into two pieces–those who want to go and those who want to sell. Those who want to sell are crowding out some who want to go. The tickets that go to those who want to go are randomly distributed to rich and poor alike. The tickets that go to those who want to sell end up going exclusively to the rich (though some poor benefit materially). This skews attendance toward the rich, which is contrary to the intentions of Dolan and the Pope.
Your second tine does not follow as a criticism of Dolan because giving the proceeds of the sale to the poor, while benefiting them materially, does not help them see the Pope. In fact, even fewer poor would see the Pope since all the tickets would be sold.
As I have said repeatedly, Dolan CAN be criticized for having tickets at all, since any tickets implies some scalping, but presumably he did it for crowd control purposes.
For the last point regarding Dolan, neither you nor Steve seem to appreciate the sensitivity of the Church to this issue. The Catholic Church was justifiably criticized centuries ago for selling spiritual favors (indulgences) and giving the rich other benefits. They are therefore VERY sensitive to the issue of having to pay for access to worship and other spiritual benefits, just as MLB is very sensitive to the issue of betting on baseball. Regardless of how many tickets are scalped, having ANY be scalped threatens to give the impression that access to the Pope and to Mass can be bought. Dolan can hardly be blamed for his sensitivity to the issue. Certainly, it’s no cause for implied accusations of hypocrisy.
Last, I have no interest in defending Dolan. He’s a big boy and can handle himself. My objection is to Steve’s arguments, which are fallacious either in their assumptions or in their logic. (See my comment #51 for my point-by-point analysis.) I can get fallacious arguments anywhere. I come here for interesting perspectives and tight logic. In this case, Steve disappointed.
@Ken B(70): Brian is right that your so-called dillemma is irrelevant. The question is whether the tickets are going to the intended recipients, or to scalpers.
The church designed a plan that did not implement their intent. When it predictably failed, they blamed the people. What this tells me is that pig-headed leaders everywhere are incapable of the realization “we should have thought this through.”
@Gene, #47:
If Ben K is a known opportunist who has in the past auctioned off his grand-mothers scooter and the books you lent him, you certainly shouldn’t have been surprised to see him act thus.
Henri (#79),
I agree that they should have designed things differently if they wanted to prevent scalping. But the only real option in that case is not to have tickets. Simply have people show up and let them in on a first-come, first-served basis. On the other hand, the no-ticket approach is almost certainly more chaotic and would cause some people to come down and not get in. So I’m not sure it’s accurate to say they didn’t think it through. It’s really that there’s no perfect solution. They chose to go with tickets and then hope for people being honest (in not taking tickets unless they intend to go). The outcome was all too predictable. I think Dolan’s comments reflect not a surprise at the expected outcome, but simply to make an official statement that the Church does not approve of buying and selling for these purposes.
Keshav 76
Well you are no longer talking about what he said. he did not distinguish different classes of scalper.
@Ken B If he thought that only one kind of scalper existed, then condemning scalpers in general would be the same as condemning that one kind of scalper.
Keshav
I think most people can imagine a poor man selling a ticket. I think a man who presents himself as a moral authority has a certain responsibility to be thoughtful in his public pronouncements. (I stipulate that if he didn’t know the Times was a newspaper it might not have been intended as a public pronouncement.)
Brian
When you concede thta Dolan and the church can be criticized for allowing the scalping, rather than using that demand to help the poor, you have conceded Steve’s argument.
Brian
About indulgences and appearances. Probably right. But this too concedes the point, for it implies the church values its amour propre over helping the poor, whilst proclaiming it really just wants to help the poor.
Ken B.,
You say “When you concede thta Dolan and the church can be criticized for allowing the scalping, rather than using that demand to help the poor, you have conceded Steve’s argument.”
Not at all. Let me state things again. Dolan could have avoided scalping if that were his primary goal, but he was trying to balance multiple goals, such as maintaining crowd control. Had Steve said “Here is a more effective way to avoid scalping…,” he would have had a point.
Instead he said “according to Cardinal Dolan…nothing should take precedence over turning out to see Pope Francis — not groceries, not medicine, not car repairs, not any of the other things that people can buy with the proceeds from selling their tickets.” In other words, Steve attacked the Cardinal’s motives.
Steve is just plain wrong, for many reasons, but mostly because he fails to appreciate a simple economic argument. Dolan doesn’t think that nothing should take precedence over seeing Pope Francis. He does, however, recognize (unlike Steve, apparently) that SOME poor people value seeing the Pope more than additional money and that the tickets should go to those who value them most.
Suppose the poor scalper sells the tickets for $500 apiece. Clearly he valued seeing the Pope at less than $500, otherwise he would have gone to see the Pope himself. The person who buys the tickets, who is rich, values seeing the Pope at exactly $500. But the poor person who would never sell the tickets, who is shut out by the scalper, clearly values seeing the Pope at MORE than $500, since he would refuse to sell at that price. So, scalping reduces the total value of the event by depriving high-value viewers in favor of low-value viewers. Dolan has every reason to complain that the value of the event is not being maximized, does he not? Moreover, value for the poor is being destroyed by transferring the ticket from the >$500 poor (by crowding out) to the $500 poor (through scalping). Anyone who cares for the poor would naturally detest this kind of value-destroying transfer.
You also say “But this too concedes the point, for it implies the church values its amour propre over helping the poor, whilst proclaiming it really just wants to help the poor.”
No, not at all. Please note that the Church wants to help everyone, not “just” the poor, so you’re claim about its proclamation is false. Note also that having those poor who want to go actually go IS helping the poor. Finally, note that ensuring that everyone knows that spiritual favors cannot be bought helps everyone, rich and poor, since the rich are saved from false expectations and the poor are saved from hopelessness.
@Ken B “When you concede thta Dolan and the church can be criticized for allowing the scalping, rather than using that demand to help the poor, you have conceded Steve’s argument.” Brian didn’t concede Steve’s argument at all. He just said Dolan can be criticized for issuing tickets knowing that they might be scalped, as opposed to not having tickets at all and letting anyone just show up. (But that would create crowd-control problems, of course.). He’s not saying Dolan can be criticized for issuing tickets that might be scalped as opposed to selling the tickets.
keshav 88
Brian says the church can be criticized for exactly what Steve notes in 11. Hence it is a concession.
and your claim about what Brian said is incorrect. Brian wrote
“Dolan CAN be criticized for having tickets at all, since any tickets implies some scalping”. what does since mean there?
Brian 87
You say Dolan wants tickets to go who value them most. But that is absurd. In a sale, such as a scalping, the ticket goes to a buyer who values it more from a seller who values it less. Scalping is a means of getting tickets to those who value them most!
Ken B,
You say “Brian says the church can be criticized for exactly what Steve notes in 11. Hence it is a concession.”
No, Keshav was exactly correct in summarizing my post. If Steve had merely argued that Dolan deserves criticism, I doubt there would be any debate here. Steve’s claims go far beyond that, and in fact are wrong. I did not concede any of his points. Let’s recall that his and your repeated point is that selling the tickets and giving the proceeds to the poor would show more concern for them. But this is obviously false, as (I think) everyone but you and Steve can see. Dolan wants to allow people to see the Pope–that’s the benefit of the tickets. Selling them and giving the proceeds to the poor does not accomplish the intended benefit in any way, so it’s not a viable alternative to giving the tickets away by lottery.
You also say “In a sale, such as a scalping, the ticket goes to a buyer who values it more from a seller who values it less. Scalping is a means of getting tickets to those who value them most!”
This is usually true of scalping. Teams will frequently sell tickets below what the market will bear, perhaps because they’re afraid of not having a sold-out event. People therefore find ways to pay for the tickets in other ways, such as standing in line, etc. Scalpers play the valuable role of getting tickets to those who would rather pay instead of in waiting for days in line, for example. Yes, this is all well known. However, the goal of the team is not necessarily to maximize value (otherwise they would sell for more). The goal is to have a full stadium with rabid fans. So it doesn’t follow that scalping actually maximizes value.
My post (#87) made a straightforward argument that scalping in the case of papal tickets does not maximize value FOR THE POOR. Sports event scalping does not supply a direct analogy to this case, so you can’t dismiss the argument by appealing to normal commercial scalping. Instead, go through my argument carefully and identify a specific flaw. I suspect you can’t. It should be obvious that those poor who refuse to scalp value the tickets more than either the sellers or the buyers. Therefore, value is maximized by getting the tickets in their, not the scalpers’, hands. This destroys any criticism you or Steve want to level at Dolan, since he is then clearly acting in the best interests of the poor.
I don’t see any difference between the Pope doling out tickets and Socaialists doling out health care, education, public transport or whatever benefit they see as most useful to the poor.
The Pope (and the socialist) may have a wider view, perhaps looking to the origin of people’s preference as part of a network, rather than taking their preference as a given. Maybe they even have some evidence to support their view. He is nevertheless assuming he knows what is good for people more than they do themselves. Perhaps that is inevitable with the Pope
@Ken B “Brian says the church can be criticized for exactly what Steve notes in 11. Hence it is a concession.
and your claim about what Brian said is incorrect. Brian wrote
“Dolan CAN be criticized for having tickets at all, since any tickets implies some scalping”. what does since mean there?” Ken B, Brian is not saging that the Church can be criticized for thr reason Steve gives in comment 11. Consider three possible actions.
1. Allowing people to come to the event without tickets.
2. Issuing tickets via lottery.
3. Selling the tickets and donating the proceeds to the poor.
Brian is saying that Dolan can be criticized for choosing option 2 rather than option 1, because option 2 allows for some scalping and option 1 does not. But he can understand why Dolan chose option 2, because option 1 would have posed crowd control problems.
But Brian does not think for a moment that option 3 is preferable to option 2. Option 3 would not meet the Church’s objectives at all.
@Ken B “You say Dolan wants tickets to go who value them most. But that is absurd. In a sale, such as a scalping, the ticket goes to a buyer who values it more from a seller who values it less. Scalping is a means of getting tickets to those who value them most!” That only holds true if willingness to pay is equal to willingness to accept. If a poor person wouldn’t be willing to part with a ticket unless they were given 1000 dollars, but he only has 200 dollars in his bank account, then a rich guy who only valued the ticket at 500 dollars would be able to buy it and the poor person would not.
Keshav 93
This is pretty odd Keshav. I am not saying Brian agrees with Steve’s value judgment. I am saying he concedes the claim on which Steve bases his judgment. “Brian is saying that Dolan can be criticized for choosing option 2 rather than option 1, because option 2 allows for some scalping” That is a concession of the point at issue. “But he can understand why Dolan chose option 2, ” Which is why his value judgment differs from Steve’s.
Consider this. An imam says Allah made men superior to women. Steve says he thinks the imam is a mysogynist, citing this claim. You agree he said it but you can understand why he said it, because it’s in the Koran. I’d say you conceded the basis of Steve’s opinion.
If someone mentioned this previously, I apologize. Why didn’t Dolan suggest the following? Those who have the tickets but won’t attend the event should do the “right” thing and give them to parishioners or to parish priests for redistribution. He could package it as a major act of charity. I would still expect resale, but, wink-wink, maybe a greater wealth transfer to those of more modest means. All, and all, I think Steve has this right.
Keshav 94
I’d like to see Bob Murphy weigh in on this one.
You deny that the sale moves a ticket from a person who values it at less than or equal to the sale price to a person who values it a the sale price or higher, and that scalping a ticket thus moves a ticket from someone who values it less to someone who values it more?
Your objection is that scalping is not perfectly effective. I grant that. Was Dolan’s lottery perfectly effective? The question is will a market have the effect of moving randomly assigned tickets to persons who value them more?> What say you, Bob Murphy?
Henri Hein 80
And even if Ben is a worm that doesn’t mean Gene’s actions cannot be reproached.
Aside from anything else what happened to the catholic doctrine of “the occasion of sin”? Wasn’t Dolan and his lottery furnishing an occasion of sin?
83 – if church leaders really think “there is only one kind of scalper”, that does seem like a troubling example of a general view that markets only serve the wealthy and harm the poor
I have not seen the tickets issued by the Church but it’s likely that the ticket had a condition: “non-transferable”. If this is the case, regardless of the economic arguments, surely someone has the right to issue a non-transferable ticket and therefore it is wrong for people to transfer it?
@Brian, #81:
It sounds like a false dilemma. I’m not sure that crowd control and accepting ticket scalpeling were the only options available. Even if they were, it’s an odd way to complain, given the church knew they accepted the least bad of choices.
@Ben, #91,
“Let’s recall that his and your repeated point is that selling the tickets and giving the proceeds to the poor would show more concern for them. But this is obviously false, as (I think) everyone but you and Steve can see. ”
That’s interesting. I think it’s obviously true.
We need to separate two things:
1. The church wants to provide event access for free to “those of modest means.”
2. The church wants to help the poor.
They are not mutually exclusive, except in the normal opportunity cost sense, but they are not the same either. You asked above to identify a specific flaw in your arguments, but I read through all of them, and I do not see you making a case that these two things overlap. Your closest is #87, but in it, you mostly just explain, correctly enough, that inter-utility comparisons are impossible.
@Ken B, #98,
Agreed on the first point. Dunno about the occasion of sin.
@Richard R:
Event tickets are often non-transferable. I think it’s safe to assume the church stipulated this condition. Traditionally, enforcing tickets are not transferred has been so difficult, event organizers have not even bothered to try. However, I think with modern technology, the church could have come up with a method which at least attempts to do so.
Henri (#102),
I don’t see how showing the equivalence of your 1 and 2 has anything to do with my argument. Are you saying the failure to show this is a flaw in my argument? If so, please explain.
In any case, the two ARE equivalent for a particular portion of the poor, namely those who prefer to see the Pope to getting cash. Do you deny that such people exist? Unfortunately, Steve seems to. When he says “the Cardinal himself would rather see poor people cheering for the Pope than improving their lives,” he is clearly assuming that no poor person would prefer to see the Pope. But no one can tell a poor person what he should prefer.
In any case, the idea that giving the poor money from the sale of tickets shows more concern for them is obviously false because there are obviously some poor for whom the the tickets show more concern.
As I said, the two statements are necessarily equivalent for those poor who prefer to see the Pope. Not only is their life improved, but it’s improved by more than it would be had they been given cash. For those poor, a ticket to see the Pope shows more care for them. Now here’s the thing–the tickets are specifically for those people, rich or poor, who want to see the Pope. So Dolan was trying to give something of value to those who find it valuable. What sense does it make to criticize him that others, who do not value the ticket as highly, would come in and take them.
Let’s make the following analogy. Suppose the Church is giving out coats to poor people. Someone who doesn’t want or need a coat takes one, and then complains that the Church didn’t give out food. Well, let’s not be silly. Today the Church was giving out coats. Don’t take a coat if you don’t want one. They’ll be giving out food another day. Come back then if that’s what you want, but don’t complain that they don’t care about you just because you don’t want a coat. The coats are not for you in the first place. Seems simple enough, right? Well, Steve is essentially complaining on behalf of some imagined poor that giving out coats shows a lack of caring.
Keshav: “Option 3 would not meet the Church’s objectives at all.” This may be true, but it does not mean the Church’s objective is maximisimg benefits to the poor. Even if it is they might not think that money is in the best interest of the poor, even if the poor would prefer money to seeing the pope.
Brian 105. “Suppose the Church is giving out coats to poor people.”
What if the church was handing out designer jeans or gold rings? Or perhaps they have 3 very expensive fur coats. Well, you might argue that coats are what the church happens to have right now, so that is what they give. However, there is a way to convert jeans, gold rings, very expensive fur coats and even ordinary coats to other things that the poor may value more than the original item. If this mechanism exists, why not use it if giving the poor what they want is your objective?
I have a feeling that the Church does not want to give the poor what they want, but what the Church thinks they need.
@Keshav #20: There’s nothing wrong with that, but that’s not what the Church would be doing.
If the poor are offered a choice between seeing the Pope and being able to afford groceries, and they pick the groceries, then presumably, receiving groceries is the option which benefits their lives the most. The Church is making their choice *for* them, and by doing so, they are making the poor worse off.
@RichardR 100
It might well be wrong. I am willing to stipulate it is worse than murder. That does not affect the argument Steve or I made. Although I agree that we both defended *poor* people who scalped the tickets. Scalpers can be bad people and yet trying to prevent scalping can still be destructive.
Harold in 106:
“I have a feeling that the Church does not want to give the poor what they want, but what the Church thinks they need.”
Perfectly put.
Further to RichardR 100
Let’s sharpen the hypothetical. Let’s say the church finds every poor person in NY, and gives them a non-transferable ticket.
Then some of these poor sell the tickets to pay for their neighbor’s emergency surgery.
I suppose the church could criticize the scalpers for transferring the ticket, and I suppose if one thinks thwarting the will of the church is an especially egregious enormity one could lambaste them even more harshly than Dolan did. But I think in each case I would think the criticism wrong. And I would think ill of the church for its heartless scheme, it’s disregard of the suffering or motives of its parishioners, and its preening criticisms.
Sometimes it’s clarifying to make a small change. So it’s not the Church, and it’s not the pope; it’s the Republican Party, and tickets to see Sarah Palin.
I wonder how many of Steve’s critics would have taken the same line, or would instead have criticized the GOP for its callousness or Palin for her arrogance.
@KenB 108
I disagree.
Suppose the church asked Professor Landsburg his advice *before* issuing the tickets. He could make his very good argument and suggest that the tickets be “transferable”.
But the tickets are already issued and are “non-transferable”. It is generally agreed that the rule of law, contracts, trust are virtues essential to a well functioning market economy. For Professor Landsburg to make his above argument *after* the tickets have been issued undermines the virtues which underlie a well functioning market economy.
“”He could make his very good argument and suggest that the tickets be “transferable”.
But the tickets are already issued and are “non-transferable”.”
Are you saying that the Church was simply mistaken? Although their actions were not in the interests of the poor, they believed they were. Now having made that mistake, scalping only makes a bad situation worse?
““I have a feeling that the Church does not want to give the poor what they want, but what the Church thinks they need.”
Perfectly put.”
Harold and Ken B.,
Really? The Church has been giving out food, clothes, shelter, money, etc. for thousands of years and continues to do so today. Any poor in NYC can get these essentials from the Church for the asking. That the Church ALSO gave out tickets to see the Pope to rich and poor alike suddenly means they don’t give the poor what they want? The Church gives out what the poor needs and wants, not simply what they want. Don’t bother asking for iPads or designer jeans.
What all the critics of Dolan are failing to acknowledge is that the Church explicitly gave out the tickets to THOSE WHO WANT TO SEE THE POPE. This is not a case of giving out tickets to all the poor, or even giving them out randomly on the street. They were given out to those who claimed to want to see the Pope. By definition, that is doing what is best for those people. The scalping criticism is aimed at those who took the tickets under false pretenses, thereby depriving others (including the poor) of being able to go.
Final summary of main points:
1) The Church gave out tickets to those who wanted to see the Pope.
2) For honest ticket-takers, this is the best possible gift, as indicated by their unwillingness to scalp their tickets for large sums.
3) The tickets-or-food dilemma posed by Steve is a false one because the poor, whether they got tickets or not, can still receive food and other items from the Church, just as they always have.
4) Some ticket-takers acted under false pretenses, having no interest in actually seeing the Pope. Their actions deprived some, especially the poor, of receiving a high-value gift while transferring that gift to those who value it more than the scalpers but less than those deprived.
5) Cardinal Dolan understandably criticized the scalpers for dishonesty, skewing the audience toward the wealthy, and for reducing the value of the gift.
6) Those who criticize Dolan for not caring about the poor either don’t understand what they’re talking about, or are too bigoted to see how illogical their claims are.
That pretty much sums it up.
“Really? The Church has been giving out food, clothes, shelter, money, etc. for thousands of years and continues to do so today.”
Been doing other things too, like shuffling pedophile priests, banning books, burning heretics. But Steve’s argument does not rely on its previous bad acts. Does yours rely on its previous good acts? That argument shouldn’t change just because the church has been naughty or nice in the past. Or indeed in other circumstances in the present.
This objection looks to me like you are ignoring the argument because of who the target is. Look at 110. The GOP ended slavery. How would you react if I rebutted a criticism of its stance on homosexuality by citing that?
Brian 114 wrote
“Cardinal Dolan understandably criticized the scalpers for … reducing the value of the gift.”
No, he criticized them for increasing the value of the gift. If I sell the ticket I do it for something I value more. I value, not you value. A poor man who scalped the ticket got something *he* thinks better. Your comment highlights Harold’s formulation perfectly.
114 – “…transferring that gift to those who value it…less than those deprived”
Not sure how we can assume that. We normally would say scalping delivers the tickets to those who *most* want to see the pope. However I’ve never been quite clear on how economists deal with the impact of ability to pay on revealed preference (i.e. ability to observe true willlingess to pay) – any insights??
But clearly it’s not a false dilemma just because the church also gives out food and coats. Other things were mentioned like medical care and car repairs. And if the tickets are valuable they could be giving out much more food. Every $ used one way is a $ that could have been used otherwise.
And someone can truly care for the poor but take actions that are misguided in that respect.
Callling people names like bigot for pointing that out is a cop-out.
@iceman 117
It is interesting that several think scalping means those who most want to go cannot, when each sale moves a ticket between two people, from the one who wants to go less to one who wants to go more.
The only argument they can frame is this: by allowing scalping more scalpers who do not want to go win tickets over those who do want to go. When they try to sell to sell tickets the only buyers are those who
1) want to go more than the scalper does, and
2) want to go less than poor people who want to go less but can afford to pay less so lose the auction.
This is a bit of a parlay, and unlikely to be true in a sample as large as 80,00, but it’s logically possible with the right initial conditions.
It also has nothing to do with Dolan’s criticisms at all, and is a special case dreamed up by his defenders. But even if it’s true it doesn’t refute Steve. The church could *still* have sold those tickets, reserving many for these despaerate-to-go-but-cannot-afford-it parishioners, or offered each poor lottery winner a choice, or …
I agree with Brian that the criticism of Dolan is 100% bigoted and irrational. Ken B reveals this when he brings up “shuffling pedophile priests, banning books, burning heretics”.
Of course the Church does not give the poor whatever they want. They may want cocaine, but the Church does not give it.
I have learned something about economic utilitarianism here. It is a system for imposing one’s peculiar values on others, especially when the conclusions are contrary to common sense and everyone else’s values.
Actually Roger, I didn’t “bring up” anything. Brian argued that Dolan and the church should get a pass because of its history of good works. I pointed out it has a history bad works too, so his argument is just special pleading. The argument shouldn’t depend on whether you like the pope or not. The argument isn’t a summary of the good or bad aspects of the church; it’s about *this* situation. Your failure to address this situation, without regard to your good opinion of the church, is telling.
r/114 Brian:
“1) The Church gave out tickets to those who wanted to see the Pope.” is then refuted by “4) Some ticket-takers acted under false pretenses, having no interest in actually seeing the Pope.” Maybe you should have said:
1) The Church gave out tickets to those who claimed they wanted to see the Pope.
Now you are consistent.
When you say “2) For honest ticket-takers, this is the best possible gift, as indicated by their unwillingness to scalp their tickets for large sums.” Their unwillingness to scalp the ticket just means (assuming they have no other reservations or high transaction costs) this gift is worth more to them than the current market price. Best possible gift? Do you really believe they think this? They might say it, but I am quite certain we could find something they’d want more.
“3) The tickets-or-food dilemma posed by Steve is a false one because the poor, whether they got tickets or not, can still receive food and other items from the Church, just as they always have.” So, the ticket-holding, poor person in NYC need not sell their ticket, because the Church provides them all the necessaries? Let’s assume I agree with you on what charities/government should provide to the poor if they could. Every item on that checklist is currently available to the poor, either through the church, other charities, or the government? I disagree.
Finally, the statement “6) Those who criticize Dolan for not caring about the poor either don’t understand what they’re talking about, or are too bigoted to see how illogical their claims are.” So you are saying: if you disagree with me you are stupid or so biased you can’t see your stupidity (should have added: I also think you’re jealous). Well played, I love when people take the high road.
@KenB: Yes, you brought up “shuffling pedophile priests, banning books, burning heretics”. No, Brian did not argue that Dolan and the church should get a pass because of its history of good works. No, no one is defending Dolan based on liking the Pope. No, I did not express any good opinion of the church. If you made any correct statements, I missed them.
David Wallin 121
As a fan of the high road don’t miss Roger’s latest. :)
“Of course the Church does not give the poor whatever they want. They may want cocaine, but the Church does not give it.”
I did not say the church was wrong not to give people what they want. A church that gave people what they wanted would probably be a waste of time, since they would do it anyway without the church. Nor are the socialists necessarily wrong for giving people what they believe the people need rather than what the people want. It requires a different argument to justify it – i.e. people do not always know what is good for them and it is possible to know better than the individual what is good for them.
From the Spokane FAV’s link -“economist Steve Landsburg, a self-described “hardcore libertarian,” wrote on his blog.”
Have you described yourself as a hardcore libertarian?
Strange. I thought it was obvious that the tickets were explicitly transferrable. Why else would the Church be talking about scalping as a moral issue? Why else would they give 80,000 tickets to 40,000 “lottery winners?”
Guess I never got the little booklet of transfer guidelines that should have come with my extra ticket. I mean, my buddy says he wouldn’t mind going–as long as it’s not raining and no good games are on that afternoon. Not really a “good faith” commitment, I’m thinking. I’m sure my good Catholic boss would be really grateful to get that ticket, but is that a little too quid pro quo? My next door neighbor is a huge fan of Francis, and everything he stands for, but I know she can’t afford a babysitter, and I can’t afford to hire one for her–unless I sold my ticket. But then she would be so disgusted with this arrangement, she would refuse to go anyway. And now, my Aunt in Albuquerque phones and says that she is prepared to fly in and claim that ticket, but she just needs a place to spend the night. She says she will either give me $100 to stay at my place, or spend $500 for a hotel room. Yes, I would profit from the Pope’s visit, but not as much as the hotel would. What to do? What to do?
And I am just one of the 40,000 random New Yorkers the Church has entrusted with the distribution of its tickets. So, it is a little hard to believe that the Church really cares all that much. After all, It’s a clear win-win for them; they get as near as possible to a guaranteed full house without having to deal with disappointed crowds at the gate; the generated publicity entirely dwarfs the very modest scale of the event itself; and, as a bonus, they get to rail against the evils of a marketplace that they themselves have set up.
119 – actually what instantly won me over to the ‘economic way of thinking’ was encountering discussions of utility *without* any value judgments about its sources. So quite the opposite of what you’re describing I think in terms of imposing things with respect to “everyone else’s values”.
Also there’s an important difference between giving, and thereby condoning, a certain thing, and allowing people to maximize their own utility.
In any event, this need not be about giving people *anything* they want, since as has been discussed, selling the tickets would give the church more resources for food, coats, medical clinics etc. (I also understand why there is historical sensitivity here – but that’s nobody else’s fault.)
Posting long after the discussion closed, so I assume no one will read this. Let’s say there are 6 people: Roberta and Richard are rich, Mary and Michael are middle income, and Paula and Peter are poor. Let’s stipulate that it is worth $100 to a rich person to see the Pope; $60 for a middle income person, and $20 to a poor person.
The church has a lottery, and gives away 3 tickets. Richard, Mary, and Peter receive tickets. If they are forced to keep their tickets, then the value they have received is $180 (the sum of the values they put on the tickets). However, if Peter is allowed to sell his ticket to Roberta, then the total value is $260, as Peter has given up $20 in value, but received $100 in cash.
If the church sells the tickets, they could maximize value by selling four tickets @ $60. Richard, Roberta, Mary, and Michael all buy tickets at $60. Richard and Roberta benefit by $40 each, as they received $100 value for $60. The church splits the $240 between Paula and Peter, and the total value is $320. Seems like the optimal solution to me.
Of course, I created an extra ticket in this solution. Perhaps a better answer is that the church sells tickets on eBay. Richard and Roberta buy tickets for $100 each, Michael buys a ticket for $60, and Paula and Peter split $260.
Anyway, I agree with Steve.
Al V
Well I read it. Roger et al are still busy not reading what Steve and I wrote, and will get around to not reading you eventually.