An antitrust lawyer concludes that there is a monopoly and writes a blog post about it. Maybe they're right, maybe not, but it is worth scrutiny. Look for thin

An antitrust lawyer concludes that there is a monopoly and writes a blog post about it. Maybe they're right, maybe not, but it is worth scrutiny. Look for things that are off in the article. Yes, a number of trucks were out of service. Would all of them have been deployed if they weren't? At least some of the budget cuts were for open positions that the stations hadn't been able to fill. Other reports of denied overtime during the early stages of the fire indicate that, even if the trucks had been available, it wouldn't have affected the response to the degree the blog post tries to tug on the readers' emotions. Another thing that stood out - market size of the three major players was listed for after the acquisition spree, but I didn't see the same numbers for before the acquisitions. Just how much of the market was actually shifted by this behavior? Again, it is possible that the author is on to something, but the article uses half the story to get the audience to connect the dots on their own, repeatedly.