As to my understanding TS made so much money cause she couldn’t get her masters and so re-recorded them herself and her fans bought them. Essentially taking the lions share which would normally go to the record companies. I don’t see how that is a bad thing, but I’m open to learning how it could be.
You could argue she enables high ticket prices for concerts or whatever but again the artist is as beholden to TicketMaster and RockNation as the fans are.
I don’t know much about her charitable work, but I think if you’re a billionaire you could always do more, that said aside from giving it all away at once it’s pretty hard to lose money once you’re that rich.
She can certainly do more to be eco-conscious though.
I actually sound like I’m into her, which I’m really not. Just wanted a discussion.
TicketMaster have a monopoly and with rocknation they control the venues too, so artists really have no choice otherwise they would be performing in local bars rather than arenas.
Cant remember which channels now but many people have covered this issue on YouTube and other places where you can learn more.
Personally I think of she did something to deal with the absurd amounts of eco problems caused by her concerts and general mass flights she wouldn’t really have any issues, at least that I’m aware of. As far as billionaires go, not bad.
To play devils advocate, if she needs to go somewhere for a concert, it’s not like she can just go to a normal airport like the rest of us. It would turn into an absolute frenzy and everyone would miss their flights.
That doesn’t really solve the issue of literally millions of people wanting to see her perform. If she doesn’t go to them they will come to her, which obviously is not good for the environment either.
Wrong, that’s what they have been conditioned to believe it’s worth because that’s what things are priced at, it has nothing to do with their actual value.
You buy a Gucci handbag for 2k, it cost 50$ to make and sell, the rest is overhead going to investors. You think you paid a fair price because that’s what these things sell for but if you remove the leeches that have nothing to do with producing the good then you’re left with a 50$ handbag.
If someone is willing to buy something for $1 than it’s worth $1. If someone is willing to buy something for $1,000,000 then it’s worth $1,000,000. Even if it’s a single potato chip.
If a company produces a bag for $50 and sells it for $2,000, then the materials and labor were worth $50, while the completed bag, because a single person was willing to buy it for $2k, is worth $2k (even if its only worth that much to that one person).
If all that overhead paying the “leeches” went away and someone was still willing to pay $2k for the bag, guess how much the bag is worth. Hint: $2k.
How do I know? Because, if a thing sells for a price, that’s its price.
On the flip side, if all those leeches drove the price up to $2,001 and no one was willing to spend that much, the bag would not be worth $2,001 and the price would therefore have to fall. If the cost of the “leeches” was keeping the price above what people were willing to pay, the leeches would be fired and the price of the bag would drop, or the company / product will stop existing in its current form.
Are there more people who would buy a Gucci bag for $50 than for $2k? Absolutely, but why the hell would Gucci sell a bag for $50 when people are literally willing to pay $2k.
No one needs a Gucci bag, be it $1 or $1m. Gucci knows this, their customers (hopefully lol) know this, and yet $2k is still the agreed upon price, because it is paid by people willing to pay it.
You contradict yourself immediately in your first sentence. It can’t be both worth 1 and 2000 at the same time. Someone willing to pay a high price does not set that price for others. We are talking about setting fair prices, not just for a single outlier.
Your definition equates to “my wares are worth whatever I can convince someone they are worth.” Is that a fair way to set prices?
Your definition equates to “my wares are worth whatever I can convince someone they are worth.” Is that a fair way to set prices?
That actually hits the nail on the head and I believe that is a perfectly acceptable way to set prices for luxury items like a Gucci bag.
ETA:
It can’t be both worth 1 and 2000 at the same time.
It can, because people value things differently. One person might not regard a single item as being worth $1 and $2,000 at the same time, but two people could. And, as long as both people exist, the guy who thinks it’s worth $2,000 is who the company is going to sell it to.
I understand its based on perspective, I’m saying that you can’t say an item holds a certain worth objectively. A Gucci bag is only worth 2000 if you can find someone to pay that. I think the word “worth” is doing extra work it doesnt need to.
That’s where you’re wrong. It’s the frog in hot water thing that’s happening, prices artificially increase to feed the leeches progressively enough that people just accept it.
You’re a victim here and you’re defending it, it’s disgusting.
It’s the same thing with everything that you purchase! 3$ for celery, the CEO is a billionaire the employees make minimum wage? How much do you think that celery cost???
Yes, there is. There’s Elon who is worse than Taylor. Bezos, also worse. But there’s more in common between swift and musk than between swift and her fans.
Not really. What about someone like Notch? Sold Minecraft for $2.5B and became an instant billionaire, no exploitation there.
Now he became an asshole after the fact, but there has to be some people who can become extremely wealthy without taking from others. Sure once you get there by luck and hard work then you should be giving back.
What about the guy that Elon had issue with on Twitter from Sweden who sold something to Twitter and become very wealthy but wanted to pay as much tax as possible etc and just be a nice dude.
She’s a fucking billionaire, damn right she’s a bad bitch, but clearly not in the sense that the OP was thinking.
Im no Swifty but has she
rallyreally exploited people to get to this level of wealth?Im just talking about the actual money here and not her carbon footprint or whatever.
Yes.
Indirectly? Absolutely. Directly? Almost certainly, but it would depend on what you mean by ‘rally’.
Apologies for the typo, I meant really.
As to my understanding TS made so much money cause she couldn’t get her masters and so re-recorded them herself and her fans bought them. Essentially taking the lions share which would normally go to the record companies. I don’t see how that is a bad thing, but I’m open to learning how it could be.
You could argue she enables high ticket prices for concerts or whatever but again the artist is as beholden to TicketMaster and RockNation as the fans are.
I don’t know much about her charitable work, but I think if you’re a billionaire you could always do more, that said aside from giving it all away at once it’s pretty hard to lose money once you’re that rich.
She can certainly do more to be eco-conscious though.
I actually sound like I’m into her, which I’m really not. Just wanted a discussion.
She could set her own prices for tickets on her personal site and tell ticket master to eat it.
Not really.
TicketMaster have a monopoly and with rocknation they control the venues too, so artists really have no choice otherwise they would be performing in local bars rather than arenas.
Cant remember which channels now but many people have covered this issue on YouTube and other places where you can learn more.
Personally I think of she did something to deal with the absurd amounts of eco problems caused by her concerts and general mass flights she wouldn’t really have any issues, at least that I’m aware of. As far as billionaires go, not bad.
One hell of an environmental impact though.
To play devils advocate, if she needs to go somewhere for a concert, it’s not like she can just go to a normal airport like the rest of us. It would turn into an absolute frenzy and everyone would miss their flights.
If a person takes two aircraft to a destination that’s excessive. That’s “fuck this planet and everyone on it, I’ve got mine and I’m fine” excessive
Nobody doesn’t get that. To me, the point is she’d have to have a slower, smaller tour and apparently she wouldn’t accept that.
There’s no “needs to go somewhere”.
That doesn’t really solve the issue of literally millions of people wanting to see her perform. If she doesn’t go to them they will come to her, which obviously is not good for the environment either.
Lol no dude. I didn’t really have strong feelings about it, but give me a break.
How would you feel if I started a tire fire in my backyard?
Fine. It would be a literal drop in the ocean compared to the pollution of massive corporations.
Where does her money comes from? People who overpay for what she sells compared to what it’s worth.
If they’re paying for it, then that’s what they think it’s worth. She’s not selling necessities.
By that logic, nothing is really a scam since people are just paying what they think something is worth.
Scams involve tricking people, and lying to them. Concert tickets involve saying “this is how much a ticket costs”. They’re not equivalent.
That’s just tricking people into thinking a ticket should cost that much.
Okay.
Wrong, that’s what they have been conditioned to believe it’s worth because that’s what things are priced at, it has nothing to do with their actual value.
You buy a Gucci handbag for 2k, it cost 50$ to make and sell, the rest is overhead going to investors. You think you paid a fair price because that’s what these things sell for but if you remove the leeches that have nothing to do with producing the good then you’re left with a 50$ handbag.
If someone is willing to buy something for $1 than it’s worth $1. If someone is willing to buy something for $1,000,000 then it’s worth $1,000,000. Even if it’s a single potato chip.
If a company produces a bag for $50 and sells it for $2,000, then the materials and labor were worth $50, while the completed bag, because a single person was willing to buy it for $2k, is worth $2k (even if its only worth that much to that one person).
If all that overhead paying the “leeches” went away and someone was still willing to pay $2k for the bag, guess how much the bag is worth. Hint: $2k.
How do I know? Because, if a thing sells for a price, that’s its price.
On the flip side, if all those leeches drove the price up to $2,001 and no one was willing to spend that much, the bag would not be worth $2,001 and the price would therefore have to fall. If the cost of the “leeches” was keeping the price above what people were willing to pay, the leeches would be fired and the price of the bag would drop, or the company / product will stop existing in its current form.
Are there more people who would buy a Gucci bag for $50 than for $2k? Absolutely, but why the hell would Gucci sell a bag for $50 when people are literally willing to pay $2k.
No one needs a Gucci bag, be it $1 or $1m. Gucci knows this, their customers (hopefully lol) know this, and yet $2k is still the agreed upon price, because it is paid by people willing to pay it.
You contradict yourself immediately in your first sentence. It can’t be both worth 1 and 2000 at the same time. Someone willing to pay a high price does not set that price for others. We are talking about setting fair prices, not just for a single outlier.
Your definition equates to “my wares are worth whatever I can convince someone they are worth.” Is that a fair way to set prices?
That actually hits the nail on the head and I believe that is a perfectly acceptable way to set prices for luxury items like a Gucci bag.
ETA:
It can, because people value things differently. One person might not regard a single item as being worth $1 and $2,000 at the same time, but two people could. And, as long as both people exist, the guy who thinks it’s worth $2,000 is who the company is going to sell it to.
I understand its based on perspective, I’m saying that you can’t say an item holds a certain worth objectively. A Gucci bag is only worth 2000 if you can find someone to pay that. I think the word “worth” is doing extra work it doesnt need to.
That’s where you’re wrong. It’s the frog in hot water thing that’s happening, prices artificially increase to feed the leeches progressively enough that people just accept it.
You’re a victim here and you’re defending it, it’s disgusting.
I’m not buying $2,000 bags lol
It’s the same thing with everything that you purchase! 3$ for celery, the CEO is a billionaire the employees make minimum wage? How much do you think that celery cost???
As I said further down to the other person. Artists are beholden to record labels, ticket master, and rock nation as the rest of us.
It’s the system that is broken.
Are you pretending she gives away her cut?
“Oh no, I have to keep these billions of dollars while the majority of people can’t imagine ever owning the place they live in!”
Fuck off, stop defending rich people, they exist at our expense.
I’m not defending per se. I was trying to have a discussion on whether there are scales to these people.
Yes, there is. There’s Elon who is worse than Taylor. Bezos, also worse. But there’s more in common between swift and musk than between swift and her fans.
The answer is no, to become that rich you need to not care a single bit about the rest of humanity.
Not really. What about someone like Notch? Sold Minecraft for $2.5B and became an instant billionaire, no exploitation there.
Now he became an asshole after the fact, but there has to be some people who can become extremely wealthy without taking from others. Sure once you get there by luck and hard work then you should be giving back.
What about the guy that Elon had issue with on Twitter from Sweden who sold something to Twitter and become very wealthy but wanted to pay as much tax as possible etc and just be a nice dude.
Or conversely you have to place your own self worth so high that I would consider it a mental disorder.