A Miracle!

[M Holmes]

Gordon Hundley writes:

> On Apr 3, 2007, at 12:10 PM, M Holmes wrote:

> > In fact, Eavis only needs to offer one ticket for sale and then  
> > take the
> > X highest bids.

> I don't see that its necessarily more fair to allocate tickets to the  
> N highest bidders than to allocate them to the N luckiest from a  
> lottery or the N most persistent about hitting refresh.

Different folks have different ideas about what's fair. The problem with
the refresh concept though is that we all get poorer because so many
man-hours are wasted instead of going into productive use. It's the
equivalent of having people dig holes that others fill in.

> There are  
> people willing to pay the costs Eavis requires to profit from his  
> festival but who would never get tickets again under a bidding war.

Those folks could volunteer to work for the festival and get tickets for
nothing. The advantage of bidding is that people pay what the festival
is worth to them and thus the tickets go to those who value it most (in
the economic sense of being willing to sacrifice something else of value
for it). That maximises economic efficiency. The trouble with a lottery
is that some folks who value it less will get tickets in preference to
some folks who value it more.

> I  
> doubt you'd be happy to be in such a position, though maybe your  
> tolerance for being the fiscal underdog is higher than your tolerance  
> for pressing 'refresh'. :)

I'm in that position as regards a trip to the international space
station inasmuch as I find it difficult to bid the necessary 14 million.
I can live with it. Of course if I could get there for a weekend by
manning the gate for one third of the time, I'd be there on Friday...

> More significantly however, I have to wonder what would be left of  
> crafts, theatre, or other arts once the festival is full of punters  
> willing to spend huge sums to go and see certain vogue bands in a  
> field.

Actually, my observations are that the punters with the most money *are*
the people buying quite expensive things from the craft stalls. By and
large the people going to see vogue bands will spend their time at the
man stages eating burgers and drinking cider, with only the occasional
foray into the "cultural" areas. Since 1985 Glasters has been split in
that way between "Babylon" and the rest.

> I seriously doubt as high a proportion of the big spenders  
> would be interested in the less publicised attractions of the current  
> festivals.

I think you're close to 180 degrees out in that assessment. Sure the
real crusties spend a lot of time in the greenfields, but it's the
well-off weekenders who make the economics of it work. Also since the
more bright someone is, the better they're paid (60% correlation or
thereabouts?) they tend to be the folks with the interest in green
politics and alternative power too.

> I honestly don't know. I do feel that the 'ambience' would  
> certainly change.

I guess I have enough experience to be cynical.  To a large degree the
occupants of Babylon correlate with the folks who came over the fence
and effectively stole from the Glasters charities (the came over at the
green side and headed straight to Babylon to camp).  The ambience
changed a great deal for the better once they were shut out by the
fence.  At least if you consider not having loads of tents stolen and
not having drug dealers run around in ski masks holding basball bats an
improvement.  Or even if you reckon not queueing 30 minutes for every
toilet stop, bite to eat, or get a drink is a good thing.

Sorry. I grew up in a working class scheme, but simple experience
teaches me that the well-off middle classes have on average a much
better idea of how to conduct themselves in public, and when you're
toe-to-toe in a field, those social skills really matter a great deal.

> However, I wish you luck in your endeavour to  
> convince Eavis to fully embrace his inner capitalist.

I always liked a challenge ;-)

FoFP