Replies

Having one huge national media chain dominate both the local print and broadcast sectors of individual markets means less competition and less incentive to serve media consumers and advertisers with quality service at good prices.

Tell me how markets work. In particular, I'm interested in how competition is constraigned over time. Name the companies that have retained virtual monopolies over, say the last 50-75 years in any area. Your concern is over-wrought. Consolidations are beneficial (think Windows) and only last for relatively short periods. Competition assures us of that.

Consolidations are beneficial (think Windows)
I'm thinking windows sucks, and Microsoft uses it to leverage all sorts of unfair advantages. Remember how they screwed Borland. Remember what they did to Java. Sorry I can't assume everyone is a programmer, but jeez those guys pissed me off. Most of all it upsets me how cool they could be, how much good they could do for the industry with all that money and talent.

Name the companies that have retained virtual monopolies over, say the last 50-75 years in any area.
AT&T comes to mind (no I won't go back to the 1800s), they had to be broken up by congress. It was a good move.

I'm interested in how competition is constraigned over time.
If one group controls a) the media, b) your computer, and c) the communication lines, it's different then some guy owning the rail system. This group can steer a democracy anyway it likes. The public won't care, because they'll be told not to. I can see these battles being fought on all three fronts. If we loose all three, it'll be like the Ministry of Truth in 1984.

The issue about anti-consolidation has nothing to do with economics. It has to do with a fear that it eliminates many alternative outlets for dialogue, etc. It is why it is an issue that both sides of the political spectrum find common ground. For example the NRA is against consolidation.