3 ms·
>But as far as I can tell, there is nothing about newspapers that makes them a natural monopoly. Why should anyone regulate combinations in that area? Very, ve
by wfo 9y ago
>But as far as I can tell, there is nothing about newspapers that makes them a natural monopoly. Why should anyone regulate combinations in that area?
Very, very few regulations are designed with the sole purpose of dealing with natural monopoly. Most are there to prevent some monstrous or dystopian consequence of unfettered capitalism that we as a society have decided is undesirable.
Having a tiny group of wealthy oligarchs own all media, press, acceptable thought in an area is one of those horrifying dystopian consequences that we apply these regulations to prevent.
Be careful any time you see an analysis of media consolidation that ignores the reality on the ground -- the media's unique ability to define and shape public opinion. Such an analysis is either so purely academic as to be not relevant to any actual political or social discussion, hopelessly naive or, worse, willfully ignorant in service of a particular ideology.
- rayiner 9y ago> Most are there to prevent some monstrous or dystopian consequence of unfettered capitalism that we as a society have decided is undesirable. When regulations aren’t designed to address identifiable market failure modes, like for example a natural monopoly or negative externality, they’re usually driven by vague public interest handwaving. Economic theory is hardly infallible, but it’s a lot better of a basis for law than that.
- wfo 9y agoThe public interest is not handwaving, it is the entire purpose of govermnent. Under your definition laws banning slavery for example are "public interest handwaving".