Is Affordability Affordable?
Can Trump win defending monopoly prices for concert tickets?
The Democrats will run in November on a theme of “affordability,” which initially seems curious because Democratic states like California tend to be dramatically less affordable than Republican states like Texas.
In general, Democrats have optimized their policies for wealthy locations that can afford government regulations to expensively cut down on economic externalities such as pollution, and Republicans have optimized for wide-open locations where externalities are less troublesome.
Neither positioning is irrational. But if you are particularly worrying about the high cost of living at the moment, the Democrats don’t have a good track record.
Still, the Trump Administration also has such a bias in favor of profit maximizers that it tends to play into the hands of Democrats. For example, I’ve long hated the concert monopolists Ticket Master/Live Nation, but the Trump Department of Justice apparently thinks they are cool. From the New York Times news section:
Justice Department and Live Nation Reach Settlement Terms in Antitrust Case
The agreement, which requires a judicial sign-off, would avoid a breakup of the concert giant. But states that joined the suit object to the terms.
By Ben Sisario, David McCabe, and Olivia Bensimon
March 9, 2026
The Justice Department said on Monday it had reached a tentative settlement of its antitrust litigation against Live Nation, the concert giant that includes Ticketmaster, a week into a high-profile trial that examined competition in the music industry.
Under the terms of the deal, Live Nation agreed to change how it makes ticketing deals with venues, allowing them to use multiple vendors to sell tickets to fans, rather than work with Ticketmaster exclusively, according to three people familiar with details of the agreement. In addition, the company would allow touring artists to use other promoters when performing in its amphitheaters, they said.
Live Nation would also pay up to $280 million in damages to be split among the states that join the settlement, according to the people familiar with the deal, who asked to remain unnamed because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.
The Justice Department had accused Live Nation of operating an illegal monopoly that reaches into nearly every aspect of the multibillion-dollar concert business. The company, the government said, stifles competition, pressures artists and venues into using its services and drives up ticket prices for millions of fans. The suit had sought to break up the company by forcing it to divest Ticketmaster, whose merger with Live Nation had been allowed by the Justice Department in 2010.
Live Nation denied those accusations, saying it faces a robust competitive market for its services, including ticketing, and that it does not threaten venues or artists.
Dozens of state attorneys general had joined the Justice Department’s lawsuit, which had been underway at Federal District Court in Manhattan. Some of them are now balking at the proposed settlement.
In addition, the judge overseeing the case, who must approve any settlement, expressed frustration when the Justice Department and Live Nation revealed the existence of the deal in court on Monday.
Judge Arun Subramanian appeared angry when, outside the presence of the jury, lawyers for both sides of the case told him they had signed a term sheet on Thursday. The judge noted that there had been no discussion of such an agreement when the parties met in his chambers on Friday morning.
“It shows absolute disrespect for the court, the jury and this entire process,” Judge Subramanian said. “It is absolutely unacceptable.”
This monopoly controversy has been going on for three decades. The second most famous grunge rock band of the 1990s, Pearl Jam, had heroically campaigned against Ticket Masters’ extortionate monopoly only to find themselves relegated to playing at state fairs.
As I may have mentioned once or twice over the decades, concert and sports events are radically higher in price today than when I was young, back when “handling fees” were minimal or nonexistent.
I can recall buying a dozen tickets for a grand total of $36 from the Texas Opry House to see (perhaps) The Police in early 1979 (or perhaps 12 tickets for Talking Heads for $24 in September 1978) by calling up this local bar and giving them my credit card number. They didn’t bother adding on a service fee and just told me to have me and my 11 guests, for whom I paid $3 apiece, give the bouncer at the front door my name.
They likely could have told me there was a $1.25 handling fee per ticket. Maybe I would have reduced my purchase to 10 tickets, but maybe not.
Granted, this wasn’t the post - “Every Breath You Take” Police. '
In 1979, they were touring in support of their first album and their only big hit so far was “Roxanne.”
They only played 11 songs in a 45 minute show.
But still, paying a grand total of $36 so you and 11 of your friends could see that your taste in music was cool was cool.
Back then, bands made most of their money off album sales, so their record labels subsidized them touring to promote their tours.
My impression is that not everybody back then was thinking about how to maximize their profits off tours.
Still, I can recall a few shady deals. For example, in 1981 when interest rates hit 16%, Van Halen announced ticket sales were open for a concert 9 months in the future instead of the usual 3 months. Presumably, they’d make an extra 8% off pocketing the additional 6 months of cash.
And around the turn of the Millennium, I got into an argument with a future Nobel Prize-winning economist over rock concert ticket prices: why where they so low relative to demand?
Paywall here.
