Monopolies are still being built -- And most Democrats say NOTHING

One of the MAJOR reasons we are in the mess we are in today has been the race to consolidate most sectors of the economy into large monopolistic Mega-Corporations. It's happened in banking, retail, media, healthcare and most other industries.

So, after all these years of laissez-faire bullshit, we as a nation are now at the mercy of these corporate monsters. They removed choice, eliminated opportunities for enreepreneurs who don;t play ball with them, taken operations far above the level of human interaction, made is all peasants in their fields and succeeded in lowering our standard of living and stealing democracy.

And it's still going on in front of our very noses. And not a goddamn thing is being said by our political leadership as it continues. Was reading about the potential "suitors" for the Knight Ridder newspaper chain. It's quite possible they will be sweallowed by some otehr media conglomerate.

And nothing is said. The Demnocratic Establishment is AWOL on this issue.

Are we ever going to fricking wake up? This is a core issue that drives so many otehr issues. But the Democratic Establishment remains silent on this issue, even though many Americans know and hate this new Guilded Age in their bones.

many are Socialists and thus are for the establishment of monopolies.

1) Not that many DUers are Socialists.

2) Hardly any DUers are for CORPORATE monopolies.

Puh-leeze.

Why do you put words into my mouth?

Puh-leeze.

with just that, corporate monopolies
Socialism is a very different thing.

Socialism is an ideology with the core belief that society should exist in which popular collectives control the means of power, and therefore the means of production. In application, however, the de facto meaning of socialism has changed with time.

Although it is a politically-loaded term, it remains strongly-related to the establishment of an organized working class; created through either revolution or by social evolution, with the purpose of building a classless society.

Socialism had its origins in the ideals of the Enlightenment, during the Industrial Age/Age of Industrialization, amid yearnings for a more egalitarian society. It has also increasingly become concentrated on social reforms within modern democracies. This concept and the term Socialist may refer to a group of ideologies, an economic system, or a state that exists or has existed.

In Marxist theory, it also refers to the society that would succeed or supplant capitalism, and would later develop further into communism, as the necessity for the socialist structure would wither away. Marxism and communism are both branches of socialism.

snip

While there is wide variation between socialist groups, nearly all would agree that they are bound together by a common history rooted originally in nineteenth and twentieth-century struggles by industrial and agricultural workers, operating according to principles of solidarity and advocating an egalitarian society, with an economics that would, in their view, serve the broad populace rather than a favored few.

Socialists are not all against business and they are not for eliminating competition.

Some are, maybe. But you are painting with a very broad brush.

And the idea that Corporate Defacto Socialism is actually free enterprise capitalism is naive.

businesses. If you have one owner (the government) how is that not a monopoly?

I don't really want government to outright control companies like Wal*Mart or Tyco, or even Microsoft, but I do want the government to set up the rules these companies need to follow to allow other companies to compete. The government is to be the referree for the game, to prevent cheating, otherwise we will just have corrupted monopolies that set their own prices for goods. That said, there are already companies and industries, along with industries, that either are already partly owned by the government(most utility companies), outright owned by the government(USPS), or need to be owned or run by the government to prevent monopolistic abuses(energy industries).

Somebody had the radio tuned to a talk station this morning, right?

Many (which doesn't mean a majority) are.

Socialism is a political theory which advocates for collective, government ownership of industries. How is that not a monopoly?

You have made the assumption that all DUers who believe in a need for economic reform are "socialists" who want the government to take over the entire economy and wipe out capitalism.

Same claimns the freepers and GOP spinners make.

There are many shades and variations between monopoly "laissez faire" capitalism and Marxist style socialism.

and transportation to know that when people want the oil companies nationalized and they say they are socialists then they are asking for a government-controlled monopoly where the price is fixed. Why they would want that power in the hands of one party, such as the current Administration, is beyond me. But that is EXACTLY what they are asking for.

The idea that "competative markets" exist under the system we've been moving towards is a total fabrication.

Oil companies have us over a barrel. And an ever-bigger barrell, becuse the number of oil companies has been decreasing through mergers and acquisitions.

Therefore there are fewer but bigger companies that become less accountable to the public. And they control a commodity that most of us have no choice but to buy.

What you either fail to recognize -- or are dfeliberatly distorting -- is that when you have that kind of situation, there are no "corrective market forces" to balance their stranglehold.

If government steps in to prevcent such conglomerations of private power and protect the public through some for of price control, that is not a "government monopoly." It is acting against private monopolies to protect the public interest.

Evidence - The price of gas fell 33% since the second week of September.

Evidence - At its current price in the low $2.00 range, the price of gasoline is fairly flat (and until this summer well behind) when inflation is factored in. If such a monopoly (or semi-monopoly) existed, the price would have long ago ballooned well ahead of inflation.

The so-called "market" for oil has very little to do with actual consumer behavior anymore.

They jack up tyhe prices to whatever they think they can get away with. The only thing that has kept it from ballooning further (and the only pressure) was the possibility of government intervention. Without that, gas would probably be about $10 a gallon at least by now.

But you missd the basic point. In any sector of the economy it is not a good thing to allow diverse markets to congeal into large amorphous monopolistic corporations. Even if those corporations were run by Albert Schweitzer, no single private entity should accumulate such wealth and political power.

Stop hitting at the "socialism" strawman. That's just a bunch of nonsense to distract people from the real problem, which is the gradual construction of a private corporate power structure that will not be accountable at all if we continue to ignore it.

So I'm not sure why you are bringing it up now.

Let's look at the heating oil and gasoline markets. Both are dependent on crude oil which had increased by 55-60% from December 2004 to September 2005. This about matches the price increases of both those commodities at their peaks. Since mid-September, the price of crude oil is down about 20-25%, the demand of gasoline was down as normal during the fall, reflecting the approximately 33% decrease in the price of gas that began in the second week of September. BTW, the heating oil futures price is also down close to approximately 20-25% since that time. (As an aside, the gasoline price started falling sharply during the second-third week of September which was weeks before the oil company presidents testified).

So, I see two markets that reflect the price of their main raw material that the oil companies HAVE to purchase, with gasoline also reflecting the normal post-Summer drop in demand as well as the refineries increasing supply starting in mid-September.

Supply and demand...pretty simple to see.

I didn't call for all industries to be nationalized and private enterprises to be abolished in my original post.


You were the one who branded it as "socialist."

As for your example of the working of markets, you are ignoring the forest fr the trees. Of course supply and demand will have a role in determining prices. That's a giant and obvious "duh" statement.

The issue is what counterbalancing forces exist to prevent abuses within that system. And whether other factors should be considered, especially when you are talking about the basic commodities and services peope have to rely on.

And you also miss the point that when you have fewer and larger companies dictating the terms, that undermines the very forces of supply and demand that you are referring to.

Last I looked socialism was an economic theory which advocated collective ownership of the means of production and distribution, along with strong government regulation of those means. It may have virtually any political systen imposed over the top of it.Witness the democratic socialist countries of europe particularly scandinavia.

Time after time, I have seen so-called socialists on this site calling for the Government to nationalize the oil industry and impose price-fixing. Guess what, that is a monopoly as it eliminates all competition with respect to pricing. Why socialists want to hand the oil industry COMPLETELY over to * is beyond me.

to the tender mercies of capitalism.

Each person should be guaranteed a right to decent housing, enough food, health care and decent, fulfilling work preferably of their own choice under decent conditions of employment. These can only be provided by the collective distribution of resources not by the rapacious "market" (where profit at any cost is all that matters).

By the by, in case you haven't noticed, * and his cronies ARE THE FREAKING OIL INDUSTRY.

I'd rather have Congress, even the repuke controlled congress voting in the open about what's going to happen with a vital resource like that than to have Exxon, et all, f*cking us over to get their obscene profits. At least we'd have a possibility of a filibuster to curb their greed.

(Actually, I want to see the oil business atrophy in the next 50 years to a size that we can drown in a bathtub 'cause alternative energy production has made it obsolete)

Let people take a visit to Canada and see how the government owns the liquor stores, cigarettes, parking, healthcare....hell I could go on forever. Pivate ownership is vital for the strength of our economy. However, healthcare that is provided by the Government is doing rather well.

as a humanist Progressive. :shrug: What are you saying here? DU is a big mix of folks.

:eyes:

Socialism is an economic system based on public ownership of the means of production and distribution.

Communism is an economic system based on working class (and eventually all people's) ownership of the means of production and distribution.

Capitalism is "Screw you, I got mine, Jack -- now you go get yours!" The Ownership society, those that own the society decide who eats or starves, who gets and who don't, who lives or dies.

socialism? The "public" is the Government. As the sole owner, the Government will fix a price that might have NOTHING to do with supply and demand and competition. As a result, there is no incentive for prices to be lowered, there is no incentive for products to be produced. Which of course means, there is no true incentive for full employment or for higher wages. You have one company to work for...the Government. You work for what they pay you.

You might say, "but the Government will have to answer to the people!" My answer.."Does this Government or any Government in recent time answer to the people?" At least, in capitalism, companies have competition, thus keeping prices at a competitive level.

some fairy dust for your myth about the tender mercies of the market -- keeping prices at a competitive level, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

It's that simple.

If the government doesn't answer to the people, it is broken. So we fix it, we don't throw it out with the trash. That's not simple but that's no reason not to do it. After all, it's our government.

Some socialists do, some don't. Kropotkin's anarcho-communists were socialists, too. Most socialists who have advocated government ownership have regarded it as a means to a purpose -- the purpose being the elimination of exploitation and classes -- and not a purpose in itself.

One alternative -- with roots going back to the 1820's -- is here:

http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/personal/cs/coopsocialism.html

doesn't socialism adcovate government intervention?

Without government intervention capitalism follows a path towards a very different system than free enterprise capitalism. It becomes a new form of aristocracy and at worst a form of feudalism.

:)

where is this lack of opportunity for entrepenuers? Given how many of today's Fortune 500 companies didn't even exist 30 years ago, some even twenty years ago, it's a pretty odd statement.

See hoe many local businesss no lomger exist because they have been Wal Marted.

Same thing happens in different forms in other industries. The little guy gets squeezed out by the bigger guys.

Just because a budding monopoly is a new one, that doesn;t make it any better.

But also Starbucked, Whole Foodsed, Home Depoted... and every deregulated industry has resulted in takeovers and monopolies and higher prices. It feels as if the communications industries are most noticeable. My phone company now provides cellphone, DSL, and satellite TV services. It is currently using penetration pricing to increase its market share. I suspect that when the company has hit its target and locked us all in for multiple year contracts, the prices will get jacked up and there won't be a damn thing we can do about it.

What makes me the most sick are the FCC rollbacks that are allowing more media monopolies than ever before. FCC regs were created specifically to keep any one corporate interest from monopolizing entire markets, to keep the public airways just that. Those days are over. I'm sure that someone who's done more research than me can cite which major markets are being held hostage by just one or two corporate entities.

To the originator of this thread, good for you for getting mad! I believe you are absolutely on track. TxDem just seems to be trying to hijack the thread. The first step in fixing a problem is to identify it. OK, that's done. Now what?

Peace,
AL

would be amused to hear WalMart is a monopoly. Costco pays better, has actual benefits, yet has the same prices as Sam's Club and makes more per square foot of store floorspace than Sam's Club. Also I'm pretty sure stores like Best Buy would be surprised to hear WalMart is a monopoly.

At one time Sears was everywhere and basically was it as far as national retail chains. Today? I'm sure you've seen the news over the last couple years. As has gone Sears so will WalMart go. If not worse. WalMart has too much competition to just keep expanding very fast for very long. Indeed those days could be over already. What's more is that its set up is such that it is very ill suited to any contraction in size. Also any company with bad word of mouth that sells stuff if dubious quality will get bitten by it. Just ask Ford and GM.

Sure, in technical terms, Wal Mart is not a monopoly. However, they, and the few companies that compete with them are monopolistic. A duo-poly or trioply is no better.

The basic fact is that in industries where there once were many players of varying sizes, many smaller and mid-sized competitors have disappeared and have been swallowed up or killed off by a few giant comnglomerates.

Instead of being an apologist for monopolitic behavior, you might be better off asking yourself why you think it is a good thing to significantly reduce or eliminate the idea of competition and diversity, and why it is a good thing to allow a relatively small number of coimpanies to totally determine our econmic, political and social lives.

.... 300 million people, 300 companies.

What a fucking maroon you are.

...of my ass in response to the poster who obviously pulled his point out of his ass. MY point is if every fucking fortune 500 company were less than 10 years old, it would mean JACK.

that no one has managed a death grip on staying a large company for very long, nor is there any lack of opportunity for companies to grow. Nevermind what hasn't changed is that small businesses still employ more people than corporations.

They are being pressured by the same factions as we Dem DU'ers are. DLC, DNC,Progressives and others way Left who are also promoting their vision.

Whatever the Dem Party ends up as...it would seem that there's much more pressure on the LEFT than the DLC can seem to muster...since DLC is really the "Lieberman Repugs" who are seeking compromise with the Repugs...and trying to "draw" errant Repugs into the Dems...but with the rest of us SICK AS HELL OF REPUGS IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM....and WE are DETERMINED to drag the Dems LEFT. (this is how I see it here where I am in my Red State.) :shrug: Whatever.........

:eyes:

The OP is correct. The Democratic Party is silent on the issue of corporate control.

Jefferson and Lincoln must be turning in their graves.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm

Jefferson and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment to the Constitution that would "ban monopolies in commerce," making it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, banning them from giving money to politicians or trying to influence elections in any way, restricting corporations to a single business purpose, limiting the lifetime of a corporation to something roughly similar to that of productive humans (20 to 40 years back then), and requiring that the first purpose for which all corporations were created be "to serve the public good."

The amendment didn't pass because many argued it was unnecessary: Virtually all states already had such laws on the books from the founding of this nation until the Age of the Robber Barons.

<snip>

But after the Civil War, things began to change. In the last year of the war, on November 21, 1864, President Abraham Lincoln looked back on the growing power of the war-enriched corporations, and wrote the following thoughtful letter to his friend Colonel William F. Elkins:

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the flower of American youth has been freely offered upon our country's altar that the nation might live. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

and for a while afterwards had little to do with corporations but rather party machines and cronyism. It was you scratch my back and I'll scratch your's raised to a prepostorous level.

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
The Medical Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005
July 28, 2005

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200507/072805a.html

<snip>

Some of my colleagues in the other body seem content to echo the refrains of the insurance industry and heap blame for the problem of rising insurance premiums rates on trial lawyers and the victims of medical malpractice themselves. I have opposed arbitrary caps on damages because they will inflict additional harm on the most vulnerable victims of medical malpractice.

<snip>

As this study makes clear, high malpractice insurance premiums are not the result of malpractice lawsuit verdicts. They are the result of investment decisions by the insurance companies and of business models geared toward ever-increasing profits. I hope that this study once and for all shines light on the real culprit in rising malpractice insurance rates and informs the Senate with solid evidence of the best way to assist the good doctors who commit their professional lives to caring for others. I ask unanimous consent that the Executive summary of the study be inserted into the Record.

<snip>

But another fact of the insurance industry’s business model requires a federal legislative correction—its blanket exemption from federal anti-trust laws. Insurers have for years enjoyed a special benefit in our marketplace. The McCarran-Ferguson Act permits insurance companies to operate without being subject to most of the Federal antitrust laws, and our Nation's physicians and their patients are suffering from this special treatment. Using their exemption, insurers can collude to set rates, resulting in higher premiums than true competition would achieve – and because of this exemption, enforcement officials cannot investigate any such collusion. If Congress is serious about controlling rising premiums, we must revoke this blanket exemption created in the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

That is why today I introduce the “Medical Malpractice Insurance Antitrust Act of 2005.” I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Mikulski, Obama, Rockefeller, and Salazar for cosponsoring this essential legislation. Our bill modifies the McCarran-Ferguson Act for the most pernicious anti-trust offenses: price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. I am hard-pressed to imagine that anyone could object to a prohibition on insurance carriers’ fixing prices or dividing territories for anticompetitive purposes. After all, the rest of our Nation’s industries manage either to abide by these laws or pay the consequences.

more...


edit: the study can be found at

http://www.centerjd.org/

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Surely the Dems wouldn't be getting campaign money from those creating monopolies...:eyes:

"I'm shock, shocked that there's gambling here."

Among the worst is the media conglomeration, giants since they control the information flow so essential for a real democracy.

I'm for a return to anti-trust legislation to get rid of monopolies.

It has really fallen off the radar screen.

It is almost as if the Repub talking points have become so inculcated that people forget(?) to even mention it, while many of us know it is something we oppose and abhor and that causes major problems.

The extent that the basic premises of liberal capitalism have been undermined wouldmhave been considered shocking 30 years ago. But our leadership says nothing about the core issues, and thus support the continued process by default.

It is when a monopoly uses that power to illegally inhibit competition when they become harmful...and when their actions become illegal

This was the basis of the lawsuit against Microsoft...that they were using their position as the dominant operating system to force computer manufacturers to restrict using competitor products...

Now when a company becopmes a monopoly it does seem almost inevitable that they eventually get so power hungry they begin to use tactics such as this. This of course is where the government is supposed to step in...

since in EVERY case they tend to use their power to grab more power to the detriment of whatever industry within which they exist.

Gates started out as a "liberal", still pretends to be, but as one who's worked in the computer business for over 40 years, Micro$oft is ALL about rape and pillage and lousy software sold for the highest dollar. They MUST do this because they're a monopoly and there's no alternative in most cases since they've bought up or driven out of business most viable competitors (except Linux and a few, notable exceptions).

Natural Monopolies are NOT evil, they are the default, this usually includes NG companies for an area, sewage, water and electricity. The problem is that these types of industries NEED to be government owned, at least the majority share, otherwise they abuse their positions as well.

You can't force people into competition...

One of the reasons this has been allowed to happen is the silence that greeted each announcement of a mega-merger over the years.

When the Number One bank announces plans to merge with the Number Two or Three Bank (which have already swallowed up many smaller institutions along the way), it doesnl;t take a rocket scientist to question the wisdom of allowing banks to grow that large and become so dominant with the stroke of a pen.

The Democrats should have been chllenging and questioning this all along. But they were basically silent every time it happened, and offered no counterpoint to the Corporate Conservative claims of how wonderful monopolization is.

That helped to both hide the issue, and make average people accept the "inevitability" of the creation of a Corporate State.

So th firtst step would be for democrats to actually bring up the issue.

After that there many combinations of "carrots and sticks" that can deal with it, including restoring the idea of Anti-trust law, restoring regulation of vital industries, taking away the tax and othgr financial advantages of such mergers, and offering incentives to support a more diverse economy.


The solutions are many, but fist of all we have to cultiuvate the will to do something.

"competition".

Which was supposed to result in cheaper better product for us to 'consume'.

Reality shows us that the opposite is happening. Which would explain why the RW (and their appeasers) don't use that argument any more.

Reality also shows that "trickle down"/"supply side economics" results in the opposite of what we were told it would do (which would be that everyone would be better off). We don't hear that argument anymore either.

As long as monopolies do not hinder competition they are not illegal...we have monopolies now for the most part because a successful company was either acquired or merged with their competitiion.

And mergers and acquisitions are NOT a natural result of market forces. It is an artificial form of growth that is far different from the natural rewarding of quality and winnowing out of weak participants that occurs in an actual market.

Say company A wants to be acquired by company B...how would you prevent it?

If a combination of two entities results in those controlling more than a designated share of the overall market, it would be seen as violating anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws.

Also take away any legal financial incentives for such combinations, such as the ability to write-off costs of the merger, etc.

This would not prevent necessary mergers for survival by failing companies. But most mergers are not done for any reason besides getting a bigger and tighter grip on the markets.

Also, perhaps most important, is for Democratic politiciansd and others cultivate the awareness among the public about the real negative impact of these mergers on our economy, standard of living and basic democracy, and counter the lies that have been used to sell them and stifle opposition. That's crucial to create an environment in which the public feels that something can be done, and to reinforce the notion that we are not powerless against this conglomeration.

So that would force Company A to stay in business? What if it was in financial trouble, but still commanded a large market share. Wouldn't that cause large layoffs? And would this apply to both public and private companies?

As I noted in my previous response, mergers of necessity are very different than the majority of mergers we have seen over the last 30 years.

Obviously if a company is in trouble it may require assistance, such as exemptions from anti-trust laws, to stay alive. But maybe, if a company is badly run or makes an unpopular product, it should eithger re-think and improve its strategis or be allowed a merciful natural death....That is what "free market" advocatesd claim anyway.

BUT, more important, that is not the driving force for most of these things. Instead, prosperous companies decide they can do "better" by taking over larger shares of the markets instantly through acquisitions. Or a company is doing well but still decides to "coatail" on the success of a competitor instead of actually competing with them.

That is not what the principles of "competative market economics" is supposed to advance. And we have to take off the blinders and stop listening to the bogus rationalizations for what is nothing more than monopolistic greed and lust for power.

How would you handle private companies...

Say they were in good financial shape, but wished to be acquired. That acquisisition would run afoul of monopoly laws due to restrictions on market share. How would you prevent the owners of that company from simply taking their money and closing up shop which I suspect many would do.

If the owners of a private company no longer want to run the company, they have several choices. Sell to the highest bidder, sell to a bidder who is independent from the existing companies in the market, or let the company die.

Just because it may seem to be in the best interests of the owner's own pocketbook to allow them to fuel the growth of monopolies by selling out to a monopolist, that does not mean we should just allow that to happen.

They should be have to follow the same guidelines, and either find another buyer or walk away and let their company die (which would not be in their best interests if it is a profitable company).

To use another analogy, just becausae it might mean I can get to the store faster, it is generally recognized that if I drive 90 mph through city streets is not good for society as a whole. That's why we have speed limits. They're pain the the butt when they are counter to our desire to drive faster, but it saves lives and keeps our streets safer.

To the employees thrown out of work...

The owners won't be responding to natural market forces...they will simply be lining their own pockets at the expense of their employees.

"The owners won't be responding to natural market forces...they will simply be lining their own pockets at the expense of their employees."

That's what the employers would be doing if they sell to a monopolist.

But you are missing the point. There are otehr options to selling a business to a monopolistic entity. The owners can continue to run the company or they can look for a buyer who is not a bigger competitor in the same field. Or they can look for otehr ways to make the company more profitable, if that's the problem.

As for employees, mergers and acquisitions of companies that are doing well often penalize employees.
Maybe employees will have jobs after a merger, maybe not. Often in these mergers, a lot of peope get laid off needlesly, becaue they have duplicate jobs, or factories and offices get closed to "consolidate" operations.

Look at trhe radio biz, for example. Instead of having numerous competing complete radio stations with full staffs, we now have single companies owning multiple stations in a market. As a result, they combine their support systems, strip down the operations and turn what were once ten businesses into one or two. Just do the math in terms of the impact on employment when that happens.

And economics is not my strong suit unfortunately...but I have worked in a company where an owner could not sell the company (no buyers), and simply did not wish to run it anymore. He had made a boatload of money and simply shut it down. All employees were let go.

It just seems like it is going to be very difficult to force a company to stay in business if it does not want to...but my reaction is a gut one and not based on any specific knowledge of the economics behind it. I will leave the debate on this to others for now!

Thanks for the comments...left me something to think about!

I think the problem is that you are looking at all of in terms of one specific motivation.

A company that is eitehr struggling to survive or whose owner just wants out is a far different situation than the chain of corporate mega mergers that have occurred over the last 30 years.

When you merge one highly successful national bank that has already absorbed 30 smaller banks over the years with another successful bank that has swallowed up 20 banks along the way, you have eliminated 50 smaller banks to create one humongous entity.

That's what all this has been leading to.

then there's something wrong with the way it's being managed.

Which goes to show that the "the market" should be regulated - regulated not primarily by the players in the market (the corporations), but by those who's lives they affect (which would be us the people).

The natural aspect of market forces is a tendency to move toward consentration of power and wealth.

As a company grows bigger and wealthier, it also geometrically gains the money and power and resources to make themn harder to compete with. Thus the Wal Mart syndrome.

The ultimate result of market forces left unchecked would be one big company that owns everything.

such as the minimum wage.

That's the problem when corporation get to much influence on the rules that regulate them.

(and I have no reason to doubt him since we has been proved right so far) Monopolies are the inevitable result of end-stage capitalism.

So, you're wrong, Monopolies are EXACTLY what capitalism is supposed to bring you.

They used to claim the opposite, and now that it turns out not to come true, they don't mention it anymore.
Marx wasn't exactly a proponent of capitalism as we know it.

of the "trustbusters", FDR, etc. Telecom Bill of '96, "Financial Modernization Act" killing off Glass-Steagall, etc. We're pawns in an oligarchy.

Very important post. Hope more will recommend this topic.

are PART OF THE PROBLEM.

They're just as much the hirelings of the corporate capitalist bastards who "donate" the money to be elected as the repukes are. They also pay back their debts just as quickly as the repukes do.

Only public financing of elections will change that.

in the u.s.

there is a defacto take over of both political parties{doesn't mean i won't vote dem -- i'm just not naive}

as far as the first poster is concerned -- there are few fundamentalist socialists.
we change -- like everyone else. and are willing to experiment wth political/economic ideas.

what we certainly don't believe in is the current ''free market'' system -- which is essentially a very controlled system.
it is in part socialist already -- but both through private control and taxation laws -- it's benefitting beyond all reason very few people.

more of that money should be making out to all the cogs and wheels who make it all happen.

Socialism for the rich and the most egregious, violent and rapacious form of laissez-faire capitalism for the rest of us...

Some basics on the old antitrust acts. a google search on antitrust acts gives many more.

"Sherman Antitrust Act, 1890, first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts; it was named for Senator John Sherman. Prior to its enactment, various states had passed similar laws, but they were limited to intrastate businesses. Finally opposition to the concentration of economic power in large corporations and in combinations of business concerns led Congress to pass the Sherman Act. The act, based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, declared illegal every contract, combination (in the form of trust or otherwise), or conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign trade. A fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for one year were set as the maximum penalties for violating the act.

The Sherman Act authorized the federal government to institute proceedings against trusts in order to dissolve them, but Supreme Court rulings prevented federal authorities from using the act for some years. As a result of President Theodore Roosevelt's “trust-busting” campaigns, the Sherman Act began to be invoked with some success, and in 1904 the Supreme Court upheld the government in its suit for dissolution of the Northern Securities Company. The act was further employed by President Taft in 1911 against the Standard Oil trust and the American Tobacco Company.

In the Wilson administration the Clayton Antitrust Act (1914) was enacted to supplement the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was set up (1914). Antitrust action sharply declined in the 1920s, but under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt new acts supplementary to the Sherman Antitrust Act were passed (e.g., the Robinson-Patman Act), and antitrust action was vigorously resumed. As a result of a suit filed in 1974 under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) monopoly was broken up in 1982..."

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0844878.html

is shown by this action:
As a result of a suit filed in 1974 under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) monopoly was broken up in 1982..."

Early in its history, AT&T's President Vail, asked that AT&T be a regulated monopoly. His argument was essentially that the many advantages of the telephone system being one unified company were worth allowing AT&T to be a monopoly as long as it was regulated to insure that the company did not use its monopoly status to get exhoribtant profits.

AT&T flourished as a regulated monopoly. The cost of phone service regularly decreased over time as technology - that they funded the development of. One way that AT&T contributed to the nation was that they funded a lot pure research in physics and chemistry and earned thousands of pattens. The transister, which was necessary for most modern electrical devices was invented there and then was given to the world. AT&T could afford to fund this type of research - that over a long period more than paid for itself - was because they had the stablity and the essentially predictable revenue stream going into the future.

The application of the Sherman Antitrust Act destroyed this - the companies that AT&T competed against, at first used the way AT&T was regulated to get a foothold. To insure that calls between any two points were affordable, the FCC required that the cost of a call be based on the distance between the two points instead of its actual cost. AT&T was ordered to sell MCI the use of its circuits at a cost based on the real cost plus a markup. This let MCI resell service on high volume routes (for which AT&T's real cost was far below the FCC regulated milage band cost) at a lower rate than AT&T could.

It's easier to state what has been lost since 1984 than what has been gained. The country as a whole has lost a major source of innovation. People old enough to have experienced both the monopoly and the competion tend to prefer the ease of the monopoly.

The worst threat to our democracy, and even to modern civilization itself, started as soon as corporations were allowed to merge, take each other over, collude by forming cartels, and all the rest we now have, with no regard for antitrust laws, the public good, or anything else. It is a change so huge, that it has replaced all other concerns as the thing that must be dealt with first, before anything else can be done anymore,and has thrown us all permanently off course.

Kevin Phillips has written very well about this, as have others--"The Politics of Rich and Poor" is still a great book--and the clearer we all get about this, the more we will understand the outrages of the past several years, and understand what to do about it. Considering the entrenched nature of corporate money in the (formerly) "political" system, though, I don't think official Democrats will ever address it; I think this will be another thing like Social Security, where the people themselves rise up and demand that they take their filthy hands off our programs. The system is so corrupt, so derailed, that great people like Sen. Mark Dayton of Minnesota can't stand it anymore, because of the never-ending fundraising, meetings with corporate donors, and worrying about shaping legislation to please capitalists. Dayton wanted to legislate for the people, cannot, and has had enough. These trends cannot be ignored, or simply blamed on the people who can't take it anymore.

When these corporations were all independant of each other, and regulated--the '70s was the last time--this society was a very different place. The people as a whole were at the center of law and regulation, the main consideration was whether or not it was good for the population as a whole, and corporations lived in OUR world, under our laws. Not allowing them to merge or collude, and keeping them under our regulations, kept things under control and prevented these disasters which we currently have. As soon as the anti-trust laws were dispensed with and they could unite, it completely tipped the balance of power so that we could no longer win--ever--to the degree that now, they no longer live in our country, we live in their market. Individual commercial interests that had no connection with each other, now being allowed to become a single-purpose monopoly, has changed the very purpose of government, and cut us out of the process.

As people have mentioned on this thread, there is no "competition," no "market forces," no "nature." When you expose the degree to which everything is collusion and price-setting, (and the Enron fake "energy 'shortages' " should have done that), then you don't fall for the "free market," "we're only doing what people want" crap.

There is no real legislation anymore, only deals to pay back contributors, subsidies, tax breaks and cheats, deregulation of whatever was there before, killing the ability of citizens to sue corporations, etc., etc. Government itself is a process that no longer has anything to do with us. The only "public" activity anymore is the advancement of commercial jockeying-for-postition. It is a closed loop now: "they" get favors by way of changed laws that undercut us, "they" go on "their" media and tell us how wonderful and exciting it is, and "they" slander, laugh at and attack anyone who tries, vainly anymore, to get the truth out. All things have been converted to the corporate-commercial interest; there IS no other sphere of life anymore. No scenic nature, only property; no education, only selling and propaganda; no art, only products; no culture and intellect, only brainless entertainment and ratings. All thinking patterns have been converted to visuals, and close-up, so you cannot look where you want, and everything is shoved in your face like a product. Everything is vulgar--it's cheap, and it sells.

There is all the world of difference, though, between corporations taking over everything and imposing their will against us, having bought the government and replaced it with themselves, and on the other hand, a regulated monopoly, controlled by us, by way of our government. A regulated monopoly, the way most utilities used to be, was great and should be returned to, although it never will be. There were no endless fees for advertising, executive graft and embezzlement, asinine losing investments,etc., etc. It is run like a non-profit, with bills only paying for operating expenses; they were run efficiently and like proprietors--and we the people controlled them. The threatening monopoly is capitalist; and we have it now.