This is a very interesting article and touches on a range topics, from the deliberate undervaluing the arts (and those who profit from it), the happy acceptance of middle class entitlement and the economic costs of controlling rights.
So let’s break it down a little. Mankiw says it is a good thing that he can purchase Hamilton tickets for $2,500 as it shows the free market in operation. Price controls and restrictions on re-selling would have otherwise prevented him from selling the show. He is correct that the free market is what is allowing him to see the show and that is it “lamentable” that others with less money can’t. He swiftly overlooks the how it might be possible to ensure everyone has access to megahits such as Hamilton, but you know he gets to see the show. In case I am being too subtle I am making a point about how the free market can easily create a second class society. Mankiw to his credit at least thinks everyone should get to see the arts (despite at first glance supporting a system that prevents that). …show more content…
Miranda got to sell his tickets for $2,500 rather than the unscrupulous middle men who are taking advantage of the artificially low tickets prices. Sadly he once again misses an important point about why the face value of tickets is so low. Can you imagine the outrage if theatres or concerts starting selling tickets at such a price. Art shouldn’t just be for the well-heeled elite. Unfortunately this means that artists aren’t getting paid the full value of their work, and less well-off still find it incredibly difficult to see shows. In fact the only ones unaffected by these price controls are those with all the money. So yes, we have a system that restricts access to Hamilton while at the same time prevents the artists behind Hamilton from fully benefiting from the “true” value of their work. This seems hardly
So let’s break it down a little. Mankiw says it is a good thing that he can purchase Hamilton tickets for $2,500 as it shows the free market in operation. Price controls and restrictions on re-selling would have otherwise prevented him from selling the show. He is correct that the free market is what is allowing him to see the show and that is it “lamentable” that others with less money can’t. He swiftly overlooks the how it might be possible to ensure everyone has access to megahits such as Hamilton, but you know he gets to see the show. In case I am being too subtle I am making a point about how the free market can easily create a second class society. Mankiw to his credit at least thinks everyone should get to see the arts (despite at first glance supporting a system that prevents that). …show more content…
Miranda got to sell his tickets for $2,500 rather than the unscrupulous middle men who are taking advantage of the artificially low tickets prices. Sadly he once again misses an important point about why the face value of tickets is so low. Can you imagine the outrage if theatres or concerts starting selling tickets at such a price. Art shouldn’t just be for the well-heeled elite. Unfortunately this means that artists aren’t getting paid the full value of their work, and less well-off still find it incredibly difficult to see shows. In fact the only ones unaffected by these price controls are those with all the money. So yes, we have a system that restricts access to Hamilton while at the same time prevents the artists behind Hamilton from fully benefiting from the “true” value of their work. This seems hardly