Category: Let's talk
well in the last day auction sites across the UK have come in for a lot of criticism for allowing their members to sell tickets to the live 8 concert. so ... what is really wrong with it? after all, the tickets have been issued, the people who texted paid their £1.50 for their text so the charity has made its money, now the tickets are the property of those they have been given to - why shouldn't those people sell them if they want to. after all, if there's a demand, why shouldn't people be able to supply.
don't see any problems on my end. it would happen for any other concert so why not that one! Oh, I am sure everyones like but it's for charity. yadda yadda yadda. then sell the tickets for more next time. grin.
And complaining that the auction sites should filter tickets to charity events carries the expectation, not only that the scalpers should care about "doing the right thing for the cause" but that the auction sites must as well. How realistic is that?
I agree here, there should be absolutely no problem. If There were two people in a shop who both wanted a CD and the shop only had one copy, if one of the people bought it and then distroyed it right in front of the prerson who regarded it more highly, they're perfectly entitled to, because it's there's and nobody else's. So basically, what I'm saying is that once something is yours it's entirely up to you what you do with it as long as you'e not causing harm to other people.
I do think though that scalpers in general are making oney by taking advantage of people's desperation. If the scalpers didn't buy all the tickets and then sell them at higher prices when demand was lower, then real fans would pay less for those tickets.
Greedy feckers at least the money isn't going to buy another dictator, another rolls royce, ect...
They aren't really taking advantage though, they got the free ticket then sold it on, so they didn't actually directly affect the proffit of the Live 8 concert. The facts though are inescapable but they just seem to be ignored as far as the cpourse is concerned. When Australia, New Zealand and Canada got independence, they didn't have any of these problems. In fact they're deesent well developed countries and they're far larger than those in Africa. The developing countries have only got themselves to blame for their poverty. People could argue that big transnational companies went in to those countries and use their resources, but they wouldn't if the countries didn't let them, therefore, developing countries are entirely responsible for that. Also, sorting out disputes through warfare and leaders ruling tyranically and therefore causing civil wars are another reason why the dpoor countries are so poor. There's a lot of disease, but if those countries really got their priorities right and put the interests of their people first before the interests of TNC's, they wouldn't have these problems because people would get a minimum wage if the governments cared enough to introduce it, they'd get proper education because the money would be there to fund it, and also because of funds in health services, there'd be better healthcare too. I think that all aid should be terminated to countries which are at war, not democratic, or don't have a minimum wage which is at a level which ensures that working people aren't poor. Those countries also need to start inventing brands of their own. Why can't their be an equivalent to Burgerking which is started in Zambia which attracts lots of people world wide to buy its products, or a clothes brand which is more attractive than nike but formed in Kenya? We didn't rely on aid when the UK was built up, nor did the US, not even in the depression. EU countries don't have so many problems either. That's because all these countries are governed deesently.
Very well said Waynderful Wangel
I don't have a problem, not even a little one with people getting their tickets and selling them. after all, they own them and should be able to do as they wish with them.
Wow, that sounds exactly like the U.S. international policy i.e. if you don't subscribe to all our values than we will not help you. I am not convinced democracy is the best form of government, as for cevil wars etc, stopping financial aid will lead to the suffering of the poor bystanding people and less so to the ones waging the wars themselves sadly, since those are financed in big part fthrough drugs, crime etc.
I think the discussion is quite a bit biast without necessarily all the justification. I kow some of the money will probably land in the wrong hands but if you can save 50000 starving people whilst making 30 criminals rich, should we let the people die only because we don't want to help the few who illegally benefit. I understand tthe arguments but I do fail to see how simply withholding all aid etc is going to aid the issue and those people who are in need, they are people just like us and I think it's downright cruel of us to sit by with a smerk and not even try to help. And quite a few of the social problems both in Africa and the middle east (or I should arther say political) stems from the fact that European nations went in, split the land up as they pleased, not based on old tribal rules or lines, and formed them into states, then giving up on them and giving them independence so we end up with a "country" that consists of multiple tribes who traditionally have rules their land butnow are fighting for power. Of course the corruption etc is also to blame and the inherent social values in Africa must change but the rest of the world cannot be held blameless in this matter. The international companies benefit from the resources grown in Africa, the weapons used in the war are bought mostly from the U.S. and Russia and those companies are benefitting hugely from the suffering of the people. I really think in all honesty big taxes should be levied on arms manufacturers and the money used towards aiding people in war torn areas, just like cigarette/topaco manufacturers are now held responsible for the effects of smoking.
So, all that being said, the price of the Live Aid tickets was determined by the organizers, if they thought the market was willing to pay on average higher prices for the tickets availible they should've upped those prices in the beginning, also the way they distribute the tickets is controlled by them, if they prevent any one person from buying more than, say, 5 tickets they are also preventin retail on a massive scale from any individual. This is really an economic problem of the optimal distribvution of resources and it's hard to find an answer for this.
Cheers
-B