4 ms·

I think it’s mostly because going to a concert is a luxury. Sure, it’s a monopoly, but the worst case scenario here is that some people won’t get to see Taylor

I think it’s mostly because going to a concert is a luxury. Sure, it’s a monopoly, but the worst case scenario here is that some people won’t get to see Taylor Swift live.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
It’s entertainment, like going to the movie theatre which is also nearing monopoly.
gberger 4y ago
Access to entertainment and culture is not a luxury.
- Longlius 4y ago
- pxx 4y ago
  The music is still accessible at libraries. Live entertainment is definitely "inessential": lux·u·ry an inessential, desirable item which is expensive or difficult to obtain. plural noun: luxuries "luxuries like raspberry vinegar and state-of-the-art CD players"
  - brookst 4y ago
    “Inessential” is subjective. There isn’t a thing in the world where you can’t find someone making the argument that it’s inessential because it’s not essential to them. And using price a test of luxury in a discussion about monopolies is kind of circular; it leads to saying that anything a monopoly has successfully captured is necessarily a luxury. That gets you to prescription eyeglasses being a luxury, because I don’t need them, people can just buy contacts, and a monopoly has driven the price to astronomical levels.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  Hmm. I dislike Ticketmaster and I am sympathetic to your sentiment, but the argument used here is flawed. Is it a live concert? If yes, does everyone has to have the same level of access to this entertainment/culture? If yes, there is appx. 7.8b people on earth now. Are they all guaranteed access to entertainment and culture?
carlob 4y ago
I don't think seeing live music is or should be a luxury... my teenage years were filled with free or cheap concerts and I'm very thankful for that. But then again I grew up in a large city in Europe, so that might skew my experience. Or maybe not, since I went to a ton of $10 concerts in NYC in my la 20s (thanks John Zorn for starting The Stone)
exabrial 4y ago
This is 100% correct. Sort of like cable internet: seen as a luxury so it’s seen as waste to go after them. But here’s the thing: the law should apply equally. If the FTC did go after a couple of these ‘ frivolous ‘ monopolies, it would set the tone across the board. This is an area where everyone can meet in the middle..
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  <<But here’s the thing: the law should apply equally. If the FTC did go after a couple of these ‘ frivolous ‘ monopolies, it would set the tone across the board. This is an area where everyone can meet in the middle.. This is what I think is really missing from the arguments. Antitrust enforcement and even basic law enforcement has been mostly AWOL whenever bigger players are involved. It really undermines average Joe's trust in the system as a whole. I don't really care about Swift and Ticketmaster. I am concerned that the system is seemingly falling apart ( or working as intended depending on how cynical one is ).
robot_no_421 4y ago
The fact that concerts are a luxury is not the problem. The problem is that the relationship between LiveNation and Ticketmaster is anti-competitive and does not provide any economic benefit for anybody besides LiveNation/TicketMaster. The way capitalism is supposed to work is that competition and supply and demand push the market price of goods to an optimal price thats economically beneficial for buyer and seller. But anti-competitive practices like bundling products and artificially limiting supply interfere with that process. If LiveNation and TicketMaster were two different entities, there would be a lot more competition for who to use for ticket distribution and prices for tickets would be a lot cheaper, which benefits the purchaser and increases economic competition and productivity.

I think it’s mostly because going to a concert is a luxury. Sure, it’s a monopoly, but the worst case scenario here is that some people won’t get to see Taylor Swift live.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

It’s entertainment, like going to the movie theatre which is also nearing monopoly.

gberger 4y ago

Access to entertainment and culture is not a luxury.

Longlius 4y ago
pxx 4y ago
The music is still accessible at libraries. Live entertainment is definitely "inessential": lux·u·ry an inessential, desirable item which is expensive or difficult to obtain. plural noun: luxuries "luxuries like raspberry vinegar and state-of-the-art CD players"
- brookst 4y ago
  “Inessential” is subjective. There isn’t a thing in the world where you can’t find someone making the argument that it’s inessential because it’s not essential to them. And using price a test of luxury in a discussion about monopolies is kind of circular; it leads to saying that anything a monopoly has successfully captured is necessarily a luxury. That gets you to prescription eyeglasses being a luxury, because I don’t need them, people can just buy contacts, and a monopoly has driven the price to astronomical levels.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Hmm. I dislike Ticketmaster and I am sympathetic to your sentiment, but the argument used here is flawed. Is it a live concert? If yes, does everyone has to have the same level of access to this entertainment/culture? If yes, there is appx. 7.8b people on earth now. Are they all guaranteed access to entertainment and culture?

carlob 4y ago

I don't think seeing live music is or should be a luxury... my teenage years were filled with free or cheap concerts and I'm very thankful for that. But then again I grew up in a large city in Europe, so that might skew my experience. Or maybe not, since I went to a ton of $10 concerts in NYC in my la 20s (thanks John Zorn for starting The Stone)

exabrial 4y ago

This is 100% correct. Sort of like cable internet: seen as a luxury so it’s seen as waste to go after them. But here’s the thing: the law should apply equally. If the FTC did go after a couple of these ‘ frivolous ‘ monopolies, it would set the tone across the board. This is an area where everyone can meet in the middle..

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<<But here’s the thing: the law should apply equally. If the FTC did go after a couple of these ‘ frivolous ‘ monopolies, it would set the tone across the board. This is an area where everyone can meet in the middle.. This is what I think is really missing from the arguments. Antitrust enforcement and even basic law enforcement has been mostly AWOL whenever bigger players are involved. It really undermines average Joe's trust in the system as a whole. I don't really care about Swift and Ticketmaster. I am concerned that the system is seemingly falling apart ( or working as intended depending on how cynical one is ).

robot_no_421 4y ago

The fact that concerts are a luxury is not the problem. The problem is that the relationship between LiveNation and Ticketmaster is anti-competitive and does not provide any economic benefit for anybody besides LiveNation/TicketMaster. The way capitalism is supposed to work is that competition and supply and demand push the market price of goods to an optimal price thats economically beneficial for buyer and seller. But anti-competitive practices like bundling products and artificially limiting supply interfere with that process. If LiveNation and TicketMaster were two different entities, there would be a lot more competition for who to use for ticket distribution and prices for tickets would be a lot cheaper, which benefits the purchaser and increases economic competition and productivity.