Art is, somewhat by definition, a monopoly. There's no way around that, the only thing you can do is have more concerts/supply of it, but that's literally more work for the artist involved.
I think it's Garth Brooks that's notorious for planning his tours where he'll just keep adding more concert dates in a city until they stop selling out at $30 tickets and then move to the next town and repeat it. That works, but you also have to be willing to play the same town 10 days in a row or something, which isn't free for a musician to do in terms of exhaustion and effort.
If you're Taylor Swift or the like, you're playing 30k person stadiums and have a stage setup that takes most of a full day or two to set up and tear down. You likely have to book the venue years in advance, and the logistics of getting you, your 30 backup musicians and dancers, all your stage tech, and god knows what else around the world is the sort of thing that's not really amenable to just adjusting on the fly.
Once you're big enough that you're competing with like... international sports events and entire music festivals for space, you're just working in a different world of constraints. In some ways, it's similar to scalability in computing. If your personal website or side project blows up, it's easy to find the space to double or even 10x the resources. If you're Netflix and somehow you double your demand, there may not even be available resources in the world to help you, and you can't just fall back to doing something smaller by choice.
I would have thought it would be unusual to have a venue with 10 dates in a row available though. I guess if you do this far enough in advance it would work in many places, but I would think most big arenas would have only a few consecutive dates at the most, working around the sports and other artists and conventions and whatever else is going on there.
The issue that you run into with the "just keep adding dates" is less that you're stuck somewhere for 10 days, but more that instead of your tour being a tight 2-3 months and you're done, there's not really anything that stops your 10 city tour from taking 10 months if people keep buying the tickets.
Yeah, but some artists actually do like to tour. And its where they make the most money, since record sales aren't really a thing anymore. Even when they were, I think touring was still the bigger moneymaker for most acts.
You say unprecedented demand... ok.
Let's say if the tickets were priced at $200 that would be more than enough to cover all the costs and pay people fairly etc.
But because of "unprecedented demand" on a fixed item.. they might say:
"Hey why not charge $300, or $400, or $500! Sure, 90% of the population that doesn't make great money won't be able to afford them, but the top 5-10% of people will still pay because it doesn't matter to them.. and we get to double or triple our profits!"
That is simply greed outweighing.. public interest (for lack of a better word). The problem with this world is so many people want to make as much as they can even if it's not "fair". I know that's just horrible anti-capitalist talk...
Maximizing profits is literally inconsistent with the well being of the population. This situation is the perfect example. Most people go to their econ101 supply & demand bullshit to justify price gouging and wealth inequality.
But I think I see your larger point. Imagine if this was not concert tickets, but a sudden food shortage. We already see it with housing and medical care. Solving the scarcity problem by price alone can get really unfair and dehumanizing in a hurry.