只要台灣媒體界有一些併購事實發生，就會有一堆無知學者或光有熱情沒有腦袋的笨學生跳出來談壟斷問題。
可笑的是這群人根本不懂「壟斷」的經濟分析，甚至不懂「壟斷」的定義，就能指三道四要幫政府下指導棋。
更可笑的是這群人主張的「媒體人勞動權、自主權」荒謬到不行，壓根就是一群打不得、罵不得的草莓勞工。老闆花錢投資一門生意，請來的員工竟然還不能管不能干涉？那生意賠錢這群員工難道要幫忙賠？真群人道德還真他媽高尚，花別人的錢不心疼啊。
2012年起我早就詳細分析這群人荒謬論點，看來一點長進都沒有。原文繼續貼上供參：
元毓說 
7 replies on “台灣媒體壟斷一直是個假議題”
People really should look at the “bigger picture" when they are talking about monopoly. Monopoly is actually harmless in itself as long as it’s achieved by competition, not rent-seeking. Therefore, the bigger picture here is competition, and it can be applied to all kinds of businesses, not just media.
Secondly, most Taiwanese are confused by the fact that media is, in fact, strictly controlled by government—not by business man. The only monopolistic organisation in our society is still “government," and it’s the only one that can achieve monopoly without any competition!
讚讚
I do not think monopoly is a problem or damage as long as the entrance barrier of the market is low to the potential competitors. For all industries, this rule works still. For a long time, law scholars have misunderstood the concept of monopoly. They think the number of competitors “in the market" counts most. However, what really matters is the entrance barrier of the market for the potential providers. You can find only one coke supplier in a desert who won’t price you unlimitedly high. Because if he really does so, the unreasonable price will induce new suppliers in to the desert, as long as there is no legal or violent barrier.
With the progress of the internet, like blogs, forums, and the Youtube-like websites, it doesn’t cost much to have a channel to spread out someone’s opinion. I strongly believe that we are at the lowest point of the costs of spreading and communicating our thoughts in the human history. And the costs would definitely be even lower in the future.
Someone could be very famous and influential as long as her opinion accepted by most people. She may earn a lot of money just like the old-school medias we know, but she doesn’t bear the advance costs as much as the old-school ones.
It is the brightest era for individual media but the darkest for the old giants. But the monopoly issue will not stay in the way by any consideration.
讚讚
廠商被惡意消費者（或胡鬧法律）增加交易費用的結果，往往是將此類費用轉嫁到其他遵守交易合約的消費者身上，這等於守約的消費者被不守約的消費者給 “尋租" 或者說 “被套利" 了。
讚讚
壟斷謬論所衍生的邏輯，便是所謂的 “公平交易"，科斯對此謬論的反應是：
如果定價定得比別人高些，說我暴利；
如果定價定得比別人低些，說我傾銷；
如果定價定得跟別人一樣，說我勾結，同謀，或聯合壟斷。
我真的是被煩透了！
另一笑話是（某社會主義國家囚犯無奈的告白）：
如果我遲到，說我掠奪國家資源；
如果我早到，說我刻意諂媚上司；
如果我準時，說我佩戴資本主義手錶。
＊＊＊
天下間的交易，只要是交易各方自願為之，不存在所謂不公平，或剝削，或有政府介入的必要。
讚讚
另外一個可以衍生談的點，就是現在的法律過度保護消費者，因為整個立法邏輯是建立在「消費者是弱勢，消費者付錢買東西已經是吃虧」這種荒謬假設上。
事實上很不要臉、很霸道甚至擺明就是要詐欺勒索的消費者多的是。
我親自碰過的：
某消費者跟你訂購2組商品，大喇喇跟你要求19樣試用品。客服依公司政策拒絕這種無理索取，消費者收到商品之後不斷來電恐嚇東西短少（殊不知出貨過程均錄影存證），明明第一次電話雙方確認東西沒有短少，純粹試用品不如他預期的多（而事實上賣方也從未答應要附贈那麼多數量的試用品）。第二次以後的電話消費者竟然能睜眼說瞎話地否認第一通電話內容，就算他自己也明知客服電話均有錄音。
然後這個消費者就要你賠償，否則他就告遍各大媒體以及在各大網站論壇給你惡評。
台灣有沒有像消保法一樣訂立特殊法來保障賣方？沒有。也不可能有這種法律，因為整個社會思維都先入為主地假設消費者是弱勢的；而賣方都是卑鄙的。
讚讚
保護買家(消費者)最好的方法，是開放賣家(廠商)自由競爭。廠商只能透過討好消費者而生存，法律卻是透過討伐廠商而存在。
讚讚
討伐廠商可以索賄，保護消費者可以騙選票。政客只會選對自己有利，能兩邊都賺的方式。可惜大部份的人還是選擇相信政治。
讚讚