If we want to see true equilibrium pricing with market forces, how about something like this?

The event is June 1.
January 1, tix go on sale from the original promoter for $1000 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want.
February 1, the remaining tix go on sale for $500 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want from what's left.
March 1, the remaining tix go on sale for $250 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want from what's left.
April 1, the remaining tix go on sale for $100 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want from what's left.
May 1, the remaining tix go on sale for $50 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want from what's left.
May 31, the remaining tix go on sale for $10 each, and you get to pick whatever seats you want from what's left.

This is effectively a regressive-taxation system, so should be loved by many slashdot regulars.
Those for whom the event is a fun luxury they can easily afford due to their high wealth, can buy tix early and reserve their favorite seat location. They pay more according to their ability.
Scalpers have no incentive to scoop up tix for two reasons:
1) the initial retail price is so high that there's no margin to make in reselling.
2) Unless a single scalper can afford to buy up an entire 30,000 seat arena at $1000 each, there WILL be seats left and thus prices WILL continue come down in the future. In other words, prices rise because of competition in the demand side. With this time-decay price structure, scalpers aren't competing with other scalpers (and fans) for the resale margins, but you are forcing scalpers to compete against their future selves. The tickets their bots harvest today WILL depreciate in value. There's no longer any point to harvest-and-hold tix.

Additionally, this will allow every participant - artists, promoters, venues, fans, casual observers on slashdot - to finally learn exactly what the real market value is for a given event. There will be an obvious bell-distribution graph where the most ticket movement happened. Everyone will actually have to decide both what price point is worth it for them AND what risk level they can tolerate if they wait until the next price drop and that's also everyone else's price point. THAT price point where the big collective moves happen -- that's a great approximation of your true equilibrium price.

As a benefit, this makes the top-dollar events more reasonable AND makes the smaller events more lucrative to the promoters and artists.
1) Prestige mainstream events like Beyonce and Swift will still always sell 80% in the first couple months, and then the medium-tail trickle to the nosebleed sections in months 3 and 4.
2) Less mainstream artists will still have their superfans who are willing to spend $1000 to ensure they get a ticket and get the exact seat they want so they can have their Very Special Connection with the artist who Sees Their Inner Soul. This increases the total revenue by creating a Premium tier above what that event would normally command even with scalpers. The fans who were only going to go if it was less than $50 will still have their chance to go cheaply.

That was the OP's point. Hence the "oh wait..."

You've posted this response all over the thread.
Thing is, anyone can apply it to every part of the curriculum.

So to demonstrate your sincerity in the discussion, list for us the specific skills you do want your tax dollars to teach in schools.

Ah, here's a comment that says it better than I did: https://slashdot.org/comments....

to notice that the entirety of Alien: Earth is an exact analogue to the race among billionaires for AGI. With all the same egos and all the same downstream consequences for the 99.9999% of the planet.

This feels a good bit like saying rain runs on ocean and clouds but water is a side issue.
What is enabling the current level of production and consumption to happen?

It will be this, because that's how human intelligence works.
There is no such thing as unitary consciousness.
It's the emergent aggregate internetwork and general-purpose vector sum produced by a set of local electrochemical networks and special-purpose processes all signal-patterning among each other.
Your Self is the result (and feedback loop) of traffic shaping.

My favorite aspect of your very-well written summary is how it is indistinguishable from the action at a poker table. Which further highlights what everyone already knows - the choices driving the economy of this global technological civilization are being made in the context of gambling. The cards themselves do have some nonzero tangible value as physical assets, but the hands have no inherent value. The value of your pocket 94 is whatever your chip stack can handle and whatever you can convince (ie can afford to convince) others your potential hand is worth, based on their own chip stack and what they can call or raise (ie can afford to call or raise) you on.

The entire planet is Emperor's New Clothes and Greater Fools all the way down.

Is this where CBS journalism standards are in 2025?

Granted, I am on the downhill slide of life so perhaps this has changed, but in the USA sitting presidents are labeled with their title of office. I do not ever recall CBS political newscasters and commentators saying, "Mr. Clinton spoke to Congress today" or "Mr. Bush held a press conference".
You can drop the title for brevity and just say "Obama"; but if you use a title when referring to someone acting in their official capacity, it isn't "Mr. Obama".

Did style guidelines change recently, or does CBS now stand for Columbia Bias System?

In summary, you now stipulate:
1) You understood perfectly well what he said. Just like all the rest of us understood perfectly well what he said.
2) Nevertheless, you made a choice to parse the statement in the most extreme ragebait way possible and then argue with him for your parsing.
3) To that end, instead of directly quoting him in a meaningful, you began posting that he said the words you chose to parse -- "we'll actually like it that the kid was killed" -- rather than what he actually said even though you admit that you in fact understood.
4) When asked who said "we'll actually like it that the kid was killed", you at first continue to insist on your chosen re-wording and argue with people who understood what was said.
5) Now you pivot to say you also understood it, but the combination of certain trigger words was.the real problem.
6) Then you finish with both owning and disowning your original statement, by explaining that the wording would be problematic to some hypothetical roomful of other people, and that everyone here on slashdot who understood perfectly well what he was saying, should go "Argue with them".

So you have an argument to make, and you make it across several posts, but when anyone challenges your willful mis-parsing of the original comment, you switch to saying it's not your argument and we should go find and argue with the people who might make that argument. Okay, then why make the argument here on slashdot at all? This isn't the Senate floor or a shareholder earnings press release. We're just people talking to other people. What's the benefit of having people language-police their everyday statements for every hypothetical edge case?

Let's simply end the thread and award you the good citizenship ribbon for defending:
theoretically-triggerable feelings of
hypothetical people
who aren't here to react to
a statement that nobody here made.

Man, I feel like that pretty much sums up 95% of social criticism on the Internet these days.

Correct.

I read the entire thread. I didn't see the post he refers to that said we'll actually like it that a kid was killed.

Link to that post, please. I don't see it, and I browse at -1 Full.

So did Senator Cotton constructively propose some kind of amendment that would set the change to occur in February 2026, giving everyone plenty of warning?
Or did he just block this to destroy any forward movement on the subject?

Yes, the current script for AI implementation is completely backward from the reality.

Humans are like the frogs in the fable who cry out to the gods for a king to rule over them (i.e. be at the top of the "pyramid of trust and control"), then are dismayed and feel wronged when the gods send a stork who is verrrry happy to rule the soft tasty frogs.

We have vestigial C-suites and Senators and Houses Of Commonses because we take comfort being ruled over by gods who look sort-of like us. We are all desperately, deeply terrified of freedom and spend our lives coming up with narratives and systems to help us escape from freedom. We like to gripe about our vainglorious presidents and our senile Senators and our Vampire Lestat-styled corporate CEOs, but each revolution just becomes the new tyranny because subconsciously in order to function we need to believe that the world is ordered and someone is in charge, so the instant we successfully overthrow The Man we start making a series of choices that create the new "The Man". We will never choose freedom. We are not capable of it.

The LLM is the answer - not to eliminating the understanders - but to eliminating the bullet-point summarizers.
You still need the understanders to feed their reports and data to the LLM. An LLM without actual human understanding of its training set is a nothingness.
Thus, LLMs can more readily replace the C-suite and the Congresscritters. We all "vote" with our reports and data, and the LLM processes and summarizes the aggregate electorate (reporterate?), then responds with a project-management framework for implementing our desires and needs.

I've been quite negative in my esteem of this wave of "AI", but among the entities more untrustworthy than AI are corporate execs and United States Senators.