August 31, 2006 2:21PM # Why Does the WSJ Have a Preferred Monopolist? By [Andrew J. Coulson](https://www.cato.org/people/andrew-coulson) --- SHARE Today’s *Wall Street Journal* once again [defends the mayoral takeover](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115698759563450167.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep) of Los Angeles public schools. The editorial board’s argument is that we shouldn’t make “the perfect the enemy of the good.” Fine. But [the pointless is the enemy of both the good *and* the perfect](https://www.cato.org/2006/06/19/just-a-bit-of-harmless-schadenfreude/). What the *WSJ* is saying is that it is “good” to substitute one education monopolist for another. In what other field does the *WSJ* have a preferred monopolist? In what other field would they suggest that simply dividing authority over a monopoly between a mayor and another government agency will lead to meaningful improvement? The only way of “fixing” monopolies is to break them up and return power to consumers by instituting a level, free, competitive playing field for producers. C’mon, guys, [Adam Smith had all this figured out](http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/a_smith.htm) in 1776 — even with specific respect to education. And [the evidence proves him right](https://www.cato.org/research/education/marketresearch_coulson.html). ##### Related Tags [Education](https://www.cato.org/education), [General](https://www.cato.org/general), [Center for Educational Freedom](https://www.cato.org/center-educational-freedom) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).