6 ms·

Sounds identical to health insurers. We need a new word for this arrangement. “Cartel” probably comes the closest but doesn’t feel quite right. It’s like a car

Sounds identical to health insurers. We need a new word for this arrangement. “Cartel” probably comes the closest but doesn’t feel quite right. It’s like a cartel but it’s lead by one “extractor” (front of house, Ticketmaster in this case).

voisin 2y ago
“Cartel” doesn’t preclude a single leader. See: Escobar et al.
- flightster 2y ago
  You are right, but in in his "cartel", everyone was working for him. Kind of a monarchy. I feel these cartels are more of an actual oligarchy where each player has a separate role that gives it power instead of just reporting up to Pablo. Taking the insurance example you have the "suppliers" (doctors, drug companies and device companies), the "venue" (hospital) and the "extractor" (insurer). Similarly you have the "suppliers" (musicians), the "venue" (the venue I guess) and the "extractor" (Live Nation and Ticketmaster). No obvious mapping to the record labels, recording studios or (biggest of all) streamers but hopefully some similarities are present. I feel like Escobar, the Sinaloa Cartel, etc, are much more top-down.
  - newsclues 2y ago
    I’m not so sure about Escobar, some people have suggested the Ochoa family was really running things behind the show.
choilive 2y ago
Collusion comes to mind. A group of companies colluding likely has a leader.
jimbokun 2y ago
Health insurers tend towards regional monopolies or duopolies.
hedora 2y ago
Fire insurance in California is moving towards control by a government-mandated cartel. All the insurance companies have to take partial ownership of the California FAIR plan company, and they share in its profits. For what it's worth, they refer to themselves as a "syndicate". CalFAIR charges 2-3x market rate premiums (for similar houses in the same area insured by the companies that own CalFAIR -- this is on top of charging more due to risk), and then refuses to pay out when your house is damaged, engages in lowballing, etc, etc. Since all the insurance companies that are "competing" against them own stakes in it, the moral hazard should be obvious. Predictably, CalFAIR's market share has been rapidly increasing in recent years. They're supposed to be temporary insurance of last resort, but they've climbed to over 3% market share. https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/19/california-insurance-crisis-fair-plan-1000-applications-rate-increase/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/19/california-insurance-crisi... https://www.cfpnet.com/about-fair-plan/ https://www.cfpnet.com/about-fair-plan/

voisin 2y ago

“Cartel” doesn’t preclude a single leader. See: Escobar et al.

flightster 2y ago
You are right, but in in his "cartel", everyone was working for him. Kind of a monarchy. I feel these cartels are more of an actual oligarchy where each player has a separate role that gives it power instead of just reporting up to Pablo. Taking the insurance example you have the "suppliers" (doctors, drug companies and device companies), the "venue" (hospital) and the "extractor" (insurer). Similarly you have the "suppliers" (musicians), the "venue" (the venue I guess) and the "extractor" (Live Nation and Ticketmaster). No obvious mapping to the record labels, recording studios or (biggest of all) streamers but hopefully some similarities are present. I feel like Escobar, the Sinaloa Cartel, etc, are much more top-down.
- newsclues 2y ago
  I’m not so sure about Escobar, some people have suggested the Ochoa family was really running things behind the show.

choilive 2y ago

Collusion comes to mind. A group of companies colluding likely has a leader.

jimbokun 2y ago

Health insurers tend towards regional monopolies or duopolies.

hedora 2y ago

Fire insurance in California is moving towards control by a government-mandated cartel. All the insurance companies have to take partial ownership of the California FAIR plan company, and they share in its profits. For what it's worth, they refer to themselves as a "syndicate". CalFAIR charges 2-3x market rate premiums (for similar houses in the same area insured by the companies that own CalFAIR -- this is on top of charging more due to risk), and then refuses to pay out when your house is damaged, engages in lowballing, etc, etc. Since all the insurance companies that are "competing" against them own stakes in it, the moral hazard should be obvious. Predictably, CalFAIR's market share has been rapidly increasing in recent years. They're supposed to be temporary insurance of last resort, but they've climbed to over 3% market share. https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/19/california-insurance-crisis-fair-plan-1000-applications-rate-increase/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/10/19/california-insurance-crisi... https://www.cfpnet.com/about-fair-plan/ https://www.cfpnet.com/about-fair-plan/