I don't think anyone is suggesting that Rapino is stealing from shareholders. We don't know how that money is spent or disbursed. What is clear from the case and settlement is that they were illegally maintaining a monopoly in the live entertainment industry that had stifled innovation and competition, and resulted in higher ticket prices for music fans.
The claim was that Livenation (or a few insiders) is benefiting from the higher prices. But the financials (low profit margins) don’t show that (absent fraud).
In which case, the benefit of the higher prices would be going to (some) performers. Which supports the claim that Livenation is useful as a punching bag for the most popular performers.
There's the occasional top performer that's in on it for sure. But yes, the few insiders are benefiting from higher prices.
I know these people personally. I'm telling you that it's true. I can think of one example where all the insiders created a startup in the ticketing space that had no reason to exist, really, and nothing worth buying solely so that they could acquire it and all the insiders could profit off of it. Lo and behold, COVID came along and made it so their plan made even less sense, and they just ran with it anyways. Money went straight from the stock market into their pockets.
There's a million examples, but again, a lot of the stuff is on the record. I'm sure Rapino is giving money to shareholders for the most part (being one is a pretty relevant part of that for him obviously) but he's doing it via illegal actions. He has made himself a billionaire in the process.
You can hedge however you want on that, but it's horrible and bad and your posts sound like they're defending it or acting like it's natural or normal in some way. It's not mitigated by the fact that someone like Ari Emanuel or a few guys in Nashville had their hand in the cookie jar too. Victims are millions of normal Americans, like me and you, and basically every working musician, except for a few special people at the top.
According to the Wikipedia page, it seems that copies of the archive are stored around the world.
LOCKSS is a decentralized strategy for preservation which includes archival copies at remote sites. It has been in use for a very long time. I feel like preservation via IPFS would introduce quite a bit of risk to the goal.
Yeah, there is some popular misunderstanding about what IPFS is... a lot of people seem to think its essentially free or subsidized distributed cloud storage. But the more you dig into it, the more you realize it's just a fairly inefficient caching system.
LOCKSS looks interesting but it seems like it's exclusively for libraries.
Sure, monopolies are great for the C-suite, but they turn out to be really bad for the end users and customers, the real losers when there is no competition.
Get in loser, we're going for a monopoly! It's all fun and games until you're locked in and enshitification sets in. I would sooner go without than get fooled again.
Please say something intelligent about a link when you drop it. No one can tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
I did watch the video of him and I can confirm (so no one else wastes their time) he does not address why monopolies are great for everyone other than the CEO. But he does go into depth about why women should not wear Hillary Clinton style pantsuits when pitching ideas to him. Noted.
I am not sure if the video is the same as the article, but there is no way I am going to pay a penny to hear what Theil has to say. Honestly, after I heard him rambling about the anti-christ crap he spews I would pay for him to stop talking.
The article is not about how monopolies are good for society.
It’s about how businesses over emphasize small differences which make them indistinguishable from their competition.
It’s better to be in your own category rather than a slightly different permutation.
Capturing the value you produce from a business is actually very difficult. Think about how many Facebook users are a net less for the business. Good business plans also plan for capturing value.
We don't need an article to tell us that monopolies are not good for society. The fact that the article ignores this elephant in the room is exactly why I have issue with it.
I agree that the best way to capture value is to destroy all competition or otherwise ensure that the customer has no other options. It is also deeply unethical, even if within the current law. I'll note that anti-trust laws have been eroded in the past two decades as the gov has caved to corporate pressure and lobbyists.
I also can't pretend I don't see a relationship here to Theil's financial backing of Curtis Yarvin, who calls for replacing democracy with a corporate-led monarchy -- the political form of monopoly. Creepy!
Monetary incentives are the foundations of Capitalism. There are only two ways that ethics might get in the way of their profits.
The first is government regulation. We saw lots of deregulation of oversight over the ten years before the 2008 financial crisis. None of the ethically compromised C-suite folks went to jail for their behavior because it was suddenly not a crime. Sometimes you have regulation, but you don't have enforcement of the regulations. This is what we get when the government is comprised of or controlled by capitalists. It's called fascism.
The second is public boycott or revolt. Could the new Target CEO be the result of the recent boycott? Same with Starbucks? Has anyone actually bought a Tesla in the past year? The big tech folks are bending over backwards to hide the fact that they have no real AI business model, making it a gigantic bubble that is about to burst. There is a national frenzy that no one is reporting on people ditching their subscriptions. We are going to see affordability get worse very quickly. It will be interesting to see what happens as more and more people start tightening their purse strings, whether by choice or necessity.
> Sometimes you have regulation, but you don't have enforcement of the regulations.
Indeed. Let us quote the Dune books (since they're trending, and for good reason!):
"Good government never depends upon laws, but upon the personal qualities of those who govern. The machinery of government is always subordinate to the will of those who administer that machinery. The most important element of government, therefore, is the method of choosing leaders.-Law and Governance (The Spacing Guild)"
And if you would let me indulge one more:
"Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class: whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.
-Politics as Repeat Phenomenon (Bene Gesserit Training Manual)"
For a lot of us, work is not our life. Turns out that most people really want a paid vacation. Smart Capitalists know that it's easier to extract value from workers with higher morale.
If you would rather trade your paid vacation for an extra week of pay, I am sure you and your boss can work it out. Companies pay out unused vacation all the time. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us!
Based on the data sources and the methodology, it looks about as accurate as you could get. They link to their methodology and technical documentation from that site. Even if some resourceful young people you know can get by on less, in general people should not have to live in abject poverty while working a full time job -- I would consider that to be a "Dying Wage".
Looks like the Moltbook stunt really backfired. CyberInsider reports that OpenClaw is distributing tons of MacOS malware. This is not good publicity for them.
We can see that the two-party democracy in the United States has been one of the primary power tools of the 1%. They buy politicians from both parties and then sit back and laugh on their yachts while everyone else goes red in the face, outraged, arguing, and distracted. We are indeed the suckers yet again, but maybe, just maybe this time will be different?
reply