Hacker News Reader

Comment by brainwad | Hacker News Reader

Rationing is not a very fair way to distribute goods or services to people. Some people may value it just enough to pay the entry fee, while others might value it a lot more, but now they have the same chances of receiving it. If you prohibit people from on-selling their tickets, then you also causes losses when people change their minds but are already locked in by the lottery.

View on HN

This kind of argument only works if everybody has the same amount of money (or other tokens) to spend.

In the real world, market prices for this kind of thing simply select for rich people, not for who values the experience the most.

The value of something (especially a luxury like travel) is literally how much you'd be willing to spend on it.

"Value" is an extremely overloaded word. Even within the narrow universe of money, economics, and finance, there are many different notions of value (e.g. market value, book value, replacement value). More broadly, what most people intuitively understand as value is independent of money and hard to quantify, but that doesn't make it less important.

I do appreciate that people want to make something as important as value quantifiable, but like all measurements there are pitfalls, and I merely pointed out a rather important pitfall when attempting to measure value using money.

> Rationing is not a very fair way to distribute goods or services to people.

So?

No one said life was fair. There is no human-right to vacation in a given destination. I have to apply for lottery hunts for various game animal in my state. It's just a means of controlling scarce resource.

> then you also causes losses when people change their minds but are already locked in by the lottery.

Good! Better be sure you wish to take part.

It's not a perfect solution, granted, but it's less likely to result in implicit selection of only the wealthiest people.

Why is that a problem? Plenty of resources are allocated to meet supply and demand. Is traveling to specific locations inherently different?

It depends on the values of the host society. They may want to promote democratic access to their country.

What does "democratic access to their country" even mean? The tourists visiting their country don't vote, so you don't mean literally. And any random rationing system you put in place will be inherently unfair in some dimension.

The work "democratic" does not always directly relate to governing a country, but also making something accessible to all without unnecessary limitations - similar to the right to vote.

> similar to the right to vote

Do I as non-citizen have a right to vote in whatever country I want, just because I have an opinion on the matter being voted? Access to citizenship is also limited by descent, wealth, or your conscientiousness. It is also ‘unfair’ if you interpret this word as ‘not instantly accessible to anyone who expresses interest’.

For this point: "If you prohibit people from on-selling their tickets, then you also causes losses when people change their minds but are already locked in by the lottery."

You could just have a return program. 30 days out it is free, 10 days out and you pay a small percentage but get your money back. You don't need to rely on selling tickets to others to get your money back

But if you lock it down by pricing out average travelers, that's not fair either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com