(09-01-2017 08:31 AM)prosec34 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 11:23 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 11:14 AM)brock20 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 11:00 AM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote:  No, they're not charging me what it's worth (for the tickets, for the sake of this discussion). They're charging somewhat less because they know they're going to tack on the parking. There's no way the "value" of a parking space for a few hours 5-6 times a year is 'worth' that price, for a parking lot that's already built, and will be amortized over who knows how long. Why not charge that same price for parking in the same place on a Wednesday afternoon in April?

To me, it's (almost) the same scenario as how they gouged on the tickets to the UT basketball game. It's charging whatever they think "the market will bear". (So-called) "flex pricing". If the value of that parking space was really what they're charging, then they'd charge that same amount day in and day out. And I know many here won't agree with that, as it's an idealistic viewpoint, but that's the fact of the matter. They're adding an additional 'fee' just because of a special event nearby. That's a "whole 'nuther ballgame" than charging for the event itself. It's also exactly analogous to motels and hotels charging more when there's a Bristol race. It's just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Economics is the easiest thing in the world to understand, but the hardest thing to accept...

That's not "economics", that's "opportunism", also known as "gouging". That said, economics is not *the* easiest thing in the world to understand. To properly understand it in nuanced detail, one needs to have multiple calculus-based graduate-level courses in said discipline - as I have. *That* said, of course you're going for price elasticity - which I admit is a real thing. But when you charge more for "special events" (as opposed to more general 'market forces' over a gradual time frame), whether it's for a race in Bristol, parking at ETSU, water in flooded Houston, or whatever, it's price gouging. I suppose one could say that price gouging is a "special case" of price elasticity, but that's stretching the definition for one thing; for another, and this is the critical difference......it's based on opportunism, and taking advantage of a *specific* event.

So you're ok with somebody charging $10 for a gallon of water in Houston right now?

This is so silly. On Wednesday afternoon, ETSU doesn't have to contract with AXIS to control access to that parking lot. Tomorrow they will. Thus it needs to cost you to park there. Those guys cost money. So does all the other stuff you'll enjoy for a low price.

People whine about the most ridiculous things. Go pay $1340 a year for nosebleed seats at Neyland and $20 to park a mile away. It's time to get behind these Bucs and stop griping.

And we're seriously going to equate charging for parking at a football game to price gouging for life-needed water during a humanitarian crisis????

1a. They don't *have* to be contracting with Axis. (I'm not bashing Lee Morrow, but I've had a couple of unpleasant run-ins with his employees, which fortunately he was able to rectify.) But this is not the place to have that discussion. (Well, actually, maybe it is, but it would be a gigantic tangent in the wrong place.)

1b. Even if they do go that route, that shouldn't affect the cost of parking. Again, I know that's an idealistic stance, but imo, it's the correct one, morally-speaking. Axis doesn't set that policy; ETSU/Scott Carter does.

2. Once again, what somebody/anybody else does is TOTALLY irrelevant. Same argument as gouging on the UT basketball ticket prices. Just because someone else does something, doesn't make it right. And you should know that. Very much a red herring there.

3. Yes, we are going to equate gouging for water in Houston with gouging for parking. The *motivation* behind each is identical, or nearly so, even if the consequences aren't the same. It's TAKING ADVANTAGE of a special situation - to the detriment of others.

4. I *AM* behind the Bucs. For quite possibly longer than you've been alive. There's nothing wrong with trying to make something better, or more equitable, or more fair, or more morally correct - and yet still supporting it's overall goals and aims. If people didn't try to make stuff better, we couldn't make much progress with human rights, progress of civilization in general, etc., etc.

OK, I'm done with this. This dead horse is now just a flattened pulp. Again, no disrespect to you, and you're certainly entitled to believe like you do, so we'll just never agree on this. So be it.