Basic economics ~OR~ what sort of world do you want to live in?

Scenario 1
You're driving. Around and around. You don't want to be driving. You want to be parking because you're late (you're late, for a very important date, etc).
And there's a space. It's a good one. Not too much traffic so you can reverse parallel park and whoosh you're done. Snug against the kerb but not squashing your tyres. You get out of the car. You're fumbling for coins for the meter...
Man in a car far more expensive than yours pulls up alongside your car. He leans out of the window.
"Hey buddy," he calls. "I'll give you fifty quid for the space." He has the fifty pound note in his hand.
Well, there'll be another space eventually. And that'll pay for dinner. Thanks very much.

And harm done here?

San Francisco has just banned a smartphone app that allows people to auction off their parking spaces and wait for the 'winner' to arrive before they pull out. Here's the story on the BBC news website.

In the original scenario, you were offered a cash incentive to give up your place in a (chaotic) queue. Presumably the fifty pounds is utterly trivial to the man who paid it - but you're sufficiently tempted. Would San Francisco view that as akin to an 'auction of public land'? Or does it only become illegal when a third party tries to organise it for you?

What's the problem? It's only queue jumping for the rich. Except it slightly destroys the whole idea of a queue. And, being British, I clearly could write a (very boring) book on queuing.

Scenario 2
Penn & Teller put on an excellent, entertaining, funny, surprising, warm-hearted and hugely enjoyable show at the Hammersmith Apollo last week. In my opinion. But I was there so my opinion is valid...

Unless they've extended the run, they were due to perform five shows. I think the house was full - and I assume it was full every night. That's about 18,000 people in those audiences. They could have performed ONE night at the Dome (you can call it the O2 arena if you like) because it has a capacity of 20,000.

That way they can 'service' the same audience more 'efficiently' and take the other four nights off.

Or they could charge twice as much. If we (arbitrarily) assume that makes it too expensive for about a third of the audience, they could then perform three nights at Hammersmith, make about the same amount of money, and have two nights off.

They don't do either of these things because (and I'm making an assumption here) they LIKE THEIR AUDIENCE. You can tell this by the way that they run outside the theatre after the show and stand on the pavement for ages and ages and ages chatting to people.

They don't want to put people off by charging more, or give people a worse view by performing in a huge venue.

Last time Barbra Streisand appeared in London, she performed at the Dome. Wasn't it for one night? Didn't the tickets cost between £100 (for a seat a long, long way away) and £500 (for a seat near enough to be sure it's actually her)? (I'll correct those if someone can give me the right numbers.)

Which act do you think enjoys performing? And which is just trying to milk the richest fans for as much as they can get away with?

Scenario 3
A busy day at Legoland. You're standing in a queue for a ride. You've been there about an hour, gradually shuffling forward. You've paid well over £100 to get your family into the park, even with a voucher that you got off a packet of detergent.

You're nearly at the front but then... Nope, you're in the next batch because fifteen people have just arrived at the front of the queue with a machine they bought that guarantees them as much queue-jumping as they like. That machine cost them more (per person) than the entry to the park. But, for them, this is a trivial amount of money.

Is this a fair way to run a park? Legoland took the money but you're expected (required?) to let them have your space.

Let's go back to scenario 1. The rich man gives his fifty pound note to a policeman who orders you to move your car. How do you feel now? Isn't that what Legoland is doing?


Waiting used to be the big equaliser. Doesn't matter who you are or how rich you are, there are certain places where you just have to wait your turn. Not any more.

You might argue that I've given trivial examples. In areas where it matters (e.g. healthcare), the rich have always been able to throw money at the situation and be seen almost immediately by the physician of their choice.

And what's so important about waiting your turn anyway? Maybe because a culture of entitlement, where the people with the deepest pockets and the sharpest elbows get what they want while the rest get nudged to one side - maybe that's not something I feel our species should aspire to.

But what sort of world do you want to live in?

Joke workshop

Challenge for the weekend: tweak the wording of this joke to make it hilarious. Instead of just being very funny as it is now.

Life is like working on the Crossrail project. Most of it is boring. Occasionally you get to step out for some fresh air and you wonder where you are. And how you got there.