The Illusion of Choice

"I thought monopolies were not allowed, but evidently, that law either isn't being enforced or it is no longer in effect."

Monopolies are not illegal or not allowed. Monopolies that are well regulated or produce exceptional products are not violating any anti-trust laws. If these monopolies were created through improper conduct, such as exclusionary activities, predatory practices, price fixing, etc., then they would be subject to anti-trust laws.

AT&T in the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s for example was a very beneficial monopoly that was regulated and produced many innovations. One could argue that Microsoft, could well be considered a monopoly, has used predatory practices and exclusionary activities, bundling/tying practices and is often in court defending those practices.

But overall the common misconception is that monopolies are illegal. They are not. The issue of legality with a monopoly is how they got there.

Now if you want me to rant at the poor state of journalism and how they no longer report the news, but create it and seem to have agendas when doing so, that would be a completely different matter.

I didn't latch on to anything. I tried to help clarify an aspect that you were erroneous on. I provided a reiteration of my disgust for journalism in general (of which the control is but one aspect) is an attempted humorous way.

I didn't specifically address the limited control as, to be honest, that is sort of like saying water is wet. I thought it was well known and to be honest I try to spend my efforts where I can actually change things and not tilt at windmills. There are areas in the environment, social equity, etc. where, in my opinion, my time is better spent.

You make a statement that has a portion of the position that is incorrect. I offer up information regarding the part of the post that was incorrect and add my disillusion with the state of things.

You make a statement that I "latch" on to an aspect you brought up as if it were an irrelevant facet of your comment. (Seemed relevant to me a sit was dealing with th e narrowing down of options and whether or not that narrowing down was illegal or not. But hey, whatever.

In your dismay, you seem to take a shot as to our not being thoroughly outraged enough of your discovery. I provide the reason why I wasn't as outraged as you seemed to want me to be as it was old "news" to me and I would rather make an impact where I could. You know habitat for humanity, cleaning local parks, etc.

It is like you feel you have to be outraged at me whether or not it is justified. Sheesh Whatever floats your boat.