Live data from Hacker News

Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

wsj.com

41–50 of 397 posts

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#41
post #20

When was the last time the Justice Department actually broke up a monopoly? Don't these suits usually result in a fine and an agreement to stop doing XYZ while both parties wink and nod, then the government lawyers go work in lucrative private practice a few years later?

There is a recent story where they are attempting to preempt the creation of a monopoly in the grocery sector.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/investing/kroger-albertsons-m...

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#42
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden admin has been on an antitrust tear. Most of the big tech companies have had cases filed against them.

Plenty of big corporate mergers have been blocked as well ( https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mergers-lose-their-shine-as-b... )

Appointing Lina Khan is one of the best things he's done.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#43
post #27
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first sentence here is correct. The second sentence is ridiculous. The Obama administration was pro-monopolist basically across the board for eight straight years. The record is pretty easy to understand.

Yup. We are in our current predicament because the previous 4 or 5 administrations, whether D or R, have let corporations run amok with M&A and general anticompetitive behavior, offering only token resistance. Biden has finally signaled a shift in the last year or two, but it remains to be seen how far these actions will go (and how much Congress and the courts will allow).

It's been downhill in a lot of ways since Reagan's administration.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#45
post #20

When was the last time the Justice Department actually broke up a monopoly? Don't these suits usually result in a fine and an agreement to stop doing XYZ while both parties wink and nod, then the government lawyers go work in lucrative private practice a few years later?

The Bell system in the 1980s?

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#48
post #20

When was the last time the Justice Department actually broke up a monopoly? Don't these suits usually result in a fine and an agreement to stop doing XYZ while both parties wink and nod, then the government lawyers go work in lucrative private practice a few years later?

I believe it was the breakup of AT&T on Jan 1, 1982 (the result of a suit started in 1974). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

Which is nuts. The DoJ needs to take a battle ax to Ticketmaster to set an example. They need to prove that they are still willing and able to throw down if necessary. TM is a disposable target, they don't build anything critical to the economy or national security. They could be deleted from the earth and dozens of replacements would spring up in a week.

TM is so hated that, if the DoJ goes for the jugular and misses, there might be appetite for Congress to re-empower the DoJ.

Monopolies aren't just anti-consumer. They can strangle the country's ability to innovate and compete in a global marketplace.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#49
post #20

When was the last time the Justice Department actually broke up a monopoly? Don't these suits usually result in a fine and an agreement to stop doing XYZ while both parties wink and nod, then the government lawyers go work in lucrative private practice a few years later?

They prefer to block monopolies before happening by blocking mergers.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You paid nearly $1k for 2 tickets to a show? To me, you are part of the problem as acting as an enabler for these prices to be seen as acceptable.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN