In actual fact, they are appealing to preference utilitarianism. This is a moral theory.
Economists are quite often appealing to a much simpler account of betterness: if everyone prefers option A to option B, then option A is better than option B.
They may well endorse that view of betterness, but I don’t see how it lets them avoid the problem here. The people who disprefer a world with scalping to a world without are the people who would like tickets but can’t afford to go.
Economists are quite often appealing to a much simpler account of betterness: if everyone prefers option A to option B, then option A is better than option B.
They may well endorse that view of betterness, but I don’t see how it lets them avoid the problem here. The people who disprefer a world with scalping to a world without are the people who would like tickets but can’t afford to go.
This standard of betterness is all you need to conclude: “every inefficient outcome is worse than some efficient outcome.”