4 ms·

Seems harsh to blame somebody for simply paying to do something they enjoy when the alternative is just not doing it. Blame the monopoly, not the consumer.

dylan604 2y ago
It takes two to tango. You're conflating this with victim blaming. This is a willing party willing to continue the cycle of the problem. For those making the decisions on "is it too expensive", then by definition it is not has stadiums continue to be filled by people participating in the fleecing. Someone with money can spend their money however they want. They can gamble it, they can snort it up their nose, they can invest it, they can do WTF they want. If what they do with the money contributes to the problem, then they are still part of the problem.
- orangecat 2y ago
  What is the actual problem here? If someone is willing to pay more for a ticket than you are, by what principle should the venue or performer be obligated to instead sell it to you at a lower price?
BobaFloutist 2y ago
I think we have a duty as consumers not to reinforce anti-consumer behavior, when at all possible.
- kimbernator 2y ago
  High prices and high profit margin are not in and of themselves anti-consumer, otherwise every luxury brand would be considered anti-consumer. If people will buy the tickets at the prices marked, why should they lower them? If they push prices high enough that the demand curve starts to dip, they will rationally correct for that. The only anti-consumer force at play is the monopoly power Live Nation is granted to dictate the price of tickets. There's very little that can be done via boycott when it comes to monopolies.
- bonestamp2 2y ago
  Unofficially, sure. But officially, the FTC is in charge of protecting consumers from abuse. I'd love to see them step in and regulate this space.
mtillman 2y ago
It’s not like there’s another option, which is why the DOJ probably has a case. If you want to attend certain games it’s a) be a season ticket holder or b) pony up to a monopoly.

dylan604 2y ago

It takes two to tango. You're conflating this with victim blaming. This is a willing party willing to continue the cycle of the problem. For those making the decisions on "is it too expensive", then by definition it is not has stadiums continue to be filled by people participating in the fleecing. Someone with money can spend their money however they want. They can gamble it, they can snort it up their nose, they can invest it, they can do WTF they want. If what they do with the money contributes to the problem, then they are still part of the problem.

orangecat 2y ago
What is the actual problem here? If someone is willing to pay more for a ticket than you are, by what principle should the venue or performer be obligated to instead sell it to you at a lower price?

BobaFloutist 2y ago

I think we have a duty as consumers not to reinforce anti-consumer behavior, when at all possible.

kimbernator 2y ago
High prices and high profit margin are not in and of themselves anti-consumer, otherwise every luxury brand would be considered anti-consumer. If people will buy the tickets at the prices marked, why should they lower them? If they push prices high enough that the demand curve starts to dip, they will rationally correct for that. The only anti-consumer force at play is the monopoly power Live Nation is granted to dictate the price of tickets. There's very little that can be done via boycott when it comes to monopolies.
bonestamp2 2y ago
Unofficially, sure. But officially, the FTC is in charge of protecting consumers from abuse. I'd love to see them step in and regulate this space.

mtillman 2y ago

It’s not like there’s another option, which is why the DOJ probably has a case. If you want to attend certain games it’s a) be a season ticket holder or b) pony up to a monopoly.