> What makes an athlete or an entertainer able to demand top dollar? That they're one of the only few who are able to do what they do. Now ask yourself: what

> What makes an athlete or an entertainer able to demand top dollar? That they're one of the only few who are able to do what they do. Now ask yourself: what makes Elsevier able to demand top dollar? It's not that they have access to the best peer reviewers, do the best type setting or archival work, etc. No, the only reason is that they own the brands that are pivotal in academics' careers. That's not added value, that's rent-seeking. In a properly functioning market, a new publisher could enter the market, provide equivalent or better services, and undercut Elsevier by taking just 30% profits, for example. Elsevier could then cut their profits to 25%, the new entrant could go below that, etc. - until the market stabilises at a profit that is deemed reasonable by both the supply and demand side. But such a new entrant can't enter the market, because they do not compete on publishing services (i.e. something that benefits public knowledge) - they compete on brand name. > Once again I have a hard time feeling bad for the example that is given (and the point of my comment) in particular the super wealthy Harvard University and other well off academic institutions that quite frankly piss away money on all sorts of non-sense. Those examples are given because they are the extreme case. If this is pissing away too much money even for them, what do you think the situation is like for institutions from the global south, for example?