It probably also gets favoured because it tends to fit into the Western mindset of "bottom-up" and "self-bootstrapped" decision making. An alternative, for exa

It probably also gets favoured because it tends to fit into the Western mindset of "bottom-up" and "self-bootstrapped" decision making. An alternative, for example: we could take the same amount of money being spent on creative works, absorb it through taxes instead, and redistribute it through a state-managed endowment system. The amount of money we spend for one Mick Jagger would probably fund quite a few musicians with a 70k/year stipend and an obligation to perform shows/generate recordings/etc. But to pull that off, you'd need some sort of formal arbitrator to decide who is "enough" of an artist/scientist/etc. to qualify for an endowment. I know there's a very strong attitude of 'you can't regulate what art is', seemingly used to justify charging seven figure prices for products that look suspiciously like they were fished out of the local preschool's recycling bin.