Markets as a general thing are essential, I agree. The particular market configuration that we have in this context is bad and tends toward oligopoly. I'm sorry for not articulating this more clearly. I'm sure you don't think that all markets are equally efficient or sustainable, but that individual markets can be more or less good depending on how they are structured and how competitive they are.

Attempts to use central planning instead have been universally disastrous

Nobody mentioned central planning except you.

Central planning is just one example of a non-market mechanism. What other alternative do you propose that could adequately solve the problem of establishing prices?

If only we could somehow regulate the market to keep the greedy fucks in check. But no, it can't be done because, apparently, the only alternative to raging free market is apparently central planning and violently shakes fingers in front of your face "Boo! communism!".

What specific market regulations would you suggest in this industry?

Central planning of anything is generally very inefficient and results in the concentration of power.

So far, we haven’t been able to find a way to concentrate power without corruption. The lesson is: only give the government as much control as necessary, never more.

In a system that is more socialist, the people forfeit their power to the party. Super easy for one party to dominate in these systems so votes mean little and you enter a doom loop of inefficiency caused by corruption.

In a system that is more capitalistic and consumer-based, the people retain a good amount of their power through purchasing choices. It is also tough for any one political party to take complete control, so the people also retain power through votes.

> Central planning of anything is generally very inefficient and results in the concentration of power.

When corporations take over the central planning, what forces should counteract? Before you say 'market forces', you have to address the present case, where three music owners control 60-70% of the market on terms favorable to them rather than to customers or creators.

It has never been easier to show people your creative works whether you paint, make music etc. The barriers are pretty small.

The real issue for creatives is there is too much competition. Too much to choose from. Supply up, demand is largely constant.

> When corporations take over the central planning, what forces should counteract?

Don't buy their product, buy from someone else.

The complaints here are from people who want to keep using a convenient platform, just insist it produce something different. Or, they are complaining that consumers are happy with that platform instead of what they think the consumers should be happy with.

The problem in any market economy that underlies most complaints is the realization that you have been judged to not be valuable. You are producing creative things, but people don't want them. It's maddening especially if you're entitled. At risk of Godwin, one might call this the Hitler problem.

It's not just corruption. Non-market systems fundamentally cannot solve the problem of economic calculation, figuring out prices so tradeoffs can be performed. They have to make assumptions about what's wanted and needed, assumptions that cannot help but be drastically wrong, even if everyone involved is pure of any taint of corruption.