United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
view the rest of the comments
So what is considered a luxury? Is a hot meal? A house? Warm clothes? To me, art should be consumed by all not the the rich.
Liverpool matches are art? Not lately...
One man's trash is another man's treasure.
I'm sure there's a grey area somewhere, but concert and football tickets are not it. There are many affordable ways to experience art, what we're talking about is tickets to see the most popular entertainers in the country. Tickets to see your local band or Sunday league club play are free or cheap.
You think that, until you realize that live nation controls almost every venue in your city/state/country and then you start getting juiced for even smaller acts.
If they want to keep their vertical integration they should have to play by some rules.
Live Nation's annual profit is under a billion dollars, on a revenue of about 23 billion, which is a profit margin of about 4%. I agree they should have to play by some rules, and having an effective monopoly on ticket sales risks abuse of that monopoly, but it is not currently happening to any great degree, and it has nothing to do with the high cost of tickets. Also their business practices in general, with predatory pricing, should be legal, but again, this has nothing to do with whether, in principle, there needs to be government intervention to enforce artificially cheap ticket prices.
So making sure there is an unattainable area to all is fine with you? So where is the line?
"Making sure there is an unattainable area" is a weird way of putting. It's fine that some experiences (whether to do with art and entertainment or other things) that are out of reach of almost everyone - there always will be. Almost no-one can have the experience of sitting in the best box in the best opera house. Almost no-one can experience going to space. Does the government need to regulate prices of those experiences?
You ask "where is the line" as if you are not drawing one. But you are, you just don't even see it; there are still experiences you think should receive free market prices, you just haven't thought much about them. I'm not drawing a line - I'm saying the government should keep out of enforcing prices in entertainment and can't think of a scenario where it would be necessary.
You say you're "not drawing one (line)" but then explain why you would. My point is not the best seat but a seat.
Regulating outside influences is smart. The U.S. is a great example of why. It is cheaper to get 2 tickets to Ireland plus concert tickets and board then to see the same group in L.A., CA. There are every few regulations stopping ticketmaster from scalping the ticket on stubhub, a ticketmaster subsidiary.
So for you, the government should step in to regulate the price of concert tickets for basic seats, but not for the best seats. How many regular seats should be sold at below market value at each venue? All of them? What about when the venue upgrades 90% of their seats to "premium" seats and takes those out of the lottery sale and sells those for market value - is that OK? Are you satisfied if just two seats per performance are lotteried? Per tour?
These are all political decisions now. Some civil servant is being paid to make them as a full-time job, and everyone's taxes are paying for it. Why is that a good use of public money? Shouldn't we instead put that money towards paying a civil servant in the department of health, or the foreign office, or justice? Or towards paying a nurse or police officer? All so that the correct number of people can experience Taylor Swift in a concert instead of on spotify, and watch a football match in a stadium instead of at the pub?
I think I've been clear that there is no line in entertainment where the government should be involved in price regulation. What line do you think I have drawn?
How is that different from Ticketmaster selling the ticket for a higher price in the first place?