It's still a case of "horses for courses", I think.
Although LCDs have improved greatly in recent years, for some applications, pro quality CRTs that use aperture grill tubes ("Trinitron" type screens) and are capable of 100hz plus refresh rates are are still superior, most especially for photographic and DTP work. Most LCDs just don't have the colour range and brightness uniformity, as well as the true blacks and rendering of dark colours for photo and publication work (they also are not capable of rendering Adobe RGB colour space for pre-press DTP work). Also, the bang for buck you get with a 19 or 21 inch CRT pro monitor these days is outstanding. I'm still using a Philips 109P aperture grill monitor that is nearly six years old and its colour vibrancy is still perfect, because of the longer lasting phosphors used on the screen (plus its fine tuning capabilities). When not being used for magazine/photo work it also makes a truly great gaming monitor....and I can select any resolution from 640*480 up to 1920*1440 with no interpolation, i.e it's always pin sharp. LCDs usually look awful when not being used in their native resolution.
New, my CRT cost over $1,500 Australian dollars...I can buy one now for half that, maybe even less .
Shadow-mask CRTs, especially cheap ones, are dreadful by comparison though and are easily bettered by the newer crop of 12/8ms LCDs for surfing the net and gaming etc.
It's all a matter of usage and price/peformance ratios, not to mention the fact that LCDs don't last all that long and come with the extra headache of the dreaded "dead pixels"...which do my head in when retouching photos on someone else's screen.