Kevin Tarr wrote:
> You can bemoan the loss of competition but it just means that one paper
> 'won'. If in a small town there are two car dealerships they are either
> going to co-exist or some factor, price or service, will make one place
> better and more profitable than the other. The two may reach some point
> where each still co-exist but there is also the chance that one will go out
> of business.
In which case the one that's left can raise prices, get away with providing
poorer service etc. etc. And if you have only one newspaper you similarly
don't have to provide the level of service or coverage that you would if you
have competition. Not to mention you can raise prices for advertisements.
Hence free enterprise (as it exists in these examples anyway) has _not_ proved
beneficial to the general public.
Doug
