From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, here goes again. I'd like to offer a concrete example of what I
> regard as a fundamental failure of the free market that has profoundly
> negative effects for the public -- the fact that in nearly all U.S. cities
> of any size, there is only daily newspaper. On the face of it, I believe
> that's a bad thing, simply due to the lack of competition, a sentiment
that
> I would expect any defender of free enterprise to agree with. To the
> greater detriment of the public, it also reduces competition among the
major
> advertisers, as I'll explain. So, how does this happen, despite free
> markets? Given the profitability of monopoly newspapers, why do they
remain
> monopolies?
>
> It is essentially for the same reason that one operating system dominates
> desktops: as soon as one competitor pulls significantly into the lead, it
> has great economic advantages over newcomers.
The UK has a free market in newspapers, but no monopoly, in
contradiction to what your explanation would seem to predict.
The situation is more complex than that.
The UK newpaper market is segmented by lifestyle not
geography, but even within each segment there are multiple
papers in direct competition with each other. Some newspapers
have gone out of business, but others have sucessfully entered
the market.
Any problems with newpaper monopolies in the US are not due solely
to the free market, but must be caused in part by the social factors
differing between it and the UK.
--
Robert
