A Core Issue that BOTH parties ignore -- Monopoly Capitalism

[Armstead]

In all of the "discussions" about the economy -- and everything else -- one basic problem is always glossed over and ignored.

That is the problem of Monopolistic Capitalism and the obscene concentration of wealth and power that results.

Monopoly Capitalism is a structure that has been built over the last 30 or 40 years in which a relatively diverse mix of businesses have congealed through mergers and acquisitions, and total deregulation, into a handful of immense corporate empires. Mid-sized companies are eliminated. Some small business may exist on the margins, but not enough to rein in -- or provide real competition -- to the unchecked power of these Monipolies.

This core problem undermines almost every other issue. Jobs? Financial Meltdown? Poisonous Politics? Hunger and poverty? These and many other problems are either the direct result of this -- or the ability to solve them has been stymied by it.

The most obvious examples are high-profile industries like Banking and Media and retail. But the same process has been occurring in less-sexy sectors as well, from toilet paper to widgets.

Opposing this should be a very mainstream position. It is fairly obvious that when competition and other restraints are removed, the remaining Monopolists have economic, political and social power that is the opposite of either Democracy or truly Competitive Free Enterprise Capitalism.

TO BE CLEAR --Monopoly Capitalism does not automatically mean all capitalism. I realize there are some segments of the left who believe that capitalism itself is the problem, and this is an inevitable byproduct of it. However, IMO, this transcends that debate. Whether or not one believes that capitalism is good or bad, reigning in the power of Monopolistic Capitalism should be a shared goal.

The Concentration of Capitalism is the result of a complex array of forces. But in essence it boils down to a lack of public will (or awareness) to pursue policies and behavior that preserve competition and prevent the Robber barons from being too big and powerful. Anti-Trust Regulation has been tossed out the window. The public sits back and ignores the results of our own behavior, such as buying everything at Wal Mart.



This -- in my opinion -- has also been a core weakness of the Democratic Party. As an institution, for at least 40 years it has never called attention to this or supported efforts to restrain the rise of Monopoly capitalism as it has been occurring. Too often, through a combination of corruption and cowardice, Democrats have ignored it or actively supported it......(NOTE: Not all Democrats. There are some great ones who have been trying to change this. But they are overpowered by the Corporate Monopoly Centrists.)

Bringing this whole issue into the daylight -- and actually doing something about it -- is a core issue that is never acknowledged in the Conventional Wisdom Chatter. But doing something about it is crucial.

Given the nature of our system, the Democratic Party can and should be the vehicle for this in the political sphere. But it has to change.

The issues related to Monopoly Capitalism are addressed by Liberalism and Progressive Populism. There is room for a spectrum from moderate to more "radical" -- But if there is to be any meaningful difference the Democratic Party has to at least share a baskic desire for real reform and acknowledge and start to really deal with this issue.

[fasttense]

1. It doesn't have to be this way. They don't own us.

We outnumber them by millions.

Get out in the streets. Join our march on DC this October.

Bring sleeping bags and tents. We are staying until we get results.

http://october2011.org/welcome

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. An intersting thesis but perhaps too simplistic

When the financial meltdown occurred there were multiple firms in genuine competition with each other. They were righting bad loans then bundling those bad loans and re-selling them. The people that bought the derivatives used that paper to proper their own enterprises believing that they were buying a source of income as the loans were to be repaid. No monopoly required, just bad financial instruments based on transactions that had too much risk to be reasonable.

And I'm not sure graft and corruption would be cured by the absence of capitalism, monopolistic or otherwise. Plenty of non-capitalist societies contend with this issue as well. Greed is something some people are about. It is how they choose to live their lives. Take one of these people in capitalist society and he will cut worker salaries and safety to pad his pockets. Put him in a progressive society and he will be the local apparatchik stocks his own home with perks and acquired goods while others wait their turn. It isn't the system, it's the person.

[Armstead]

3. My post WAS simplistic by necessity

You are absolutely correct. It is a very complex issue, that has many facets and levels to it.

But it has to be boiled down to become part of the larger "conversation." The fundamental process can and should be looked at in terms of the basic dynamics at work, and what is the basic direction needed to change it.

Regarding your other points. You are correct in saying the meltdown was the result of bad decisions by competing players. BUT:

1)In a more diverse economy, bad decisions and failures by one company would be less likely to trash the whole economy. That is a core problem with a system that allows "too big to fail" corporations to dominate the economy.

2)Yes, smaller businesses are also prone to mistakes and corruption. However, it is easier to either miss or hide mistakes by immense businesses. And, again, with smaller businesses, individual problems are easier to spot and fix -- either by the business and/or with regulation.

Also, while greed has always been a part of human nature, I believe it is possible to reverse the awful social values that have dominated since the 1980's, such as "Winner take all" and "Greed is the only good" etc. We have to start moving back to a point where "wealth" is not this crazy driver that sends us scurrying like rats in a maze to get the whole cheese instead of sharing it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I don't believe we're too far apart.

I think I'm on track with your point about diverse economies.

That's not an easy admission for me as I've tended to believe a government-centric economy would be more fair but in the last few years I've come to realize the shady characters of life won't be regulated by government, they simply go into government and regulate everybody else, i.e. GE is getting billions in government subsidies and contracts, making obscene profits while shipping jobs overseas and they get to do so because the CEO is working in the White House telling other companies what they should or should not be allowed to do.

Pfft!

If I sound disillusioned there is a reason for it.

I think monopolies are starting to look pretty bad all around regardless if they're private or public.

[Armstead]

11. It depends both on individuals out here and individuals of goodwill on the inside

It requires all of us on whatever level we are able to influence.

But on the larger level, it requires being represented by people who are basically motivated by the right reasons -- and are willing to walk the talk politically.

That's one reason my icon over there is Bernie Sanders. He is a great example of someone who stands up for the right things, while working within the system.

If there were more like Bernie in government, we could go a long way towards fixing the problem.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. Yes, but bad people often pass themselves off as good people

And useless people present themselves as hyper-competent.

Sounds crazy, I know.

I'm not saying Obama is bad but who among us would have imagined in 2008 that someone as self-interested and profit-at-all-cost-motivated as Jeffrey Immelt would be sitting at his table feeding "advice" into his ear?

People who are genuine such as Sen. Sanders are all well and good but he makes up 1/535 of the legislative power and none of the executive or judicial power. What do we do; make him king? And after he's gone do we expect all who petition to hold the throne to be equally good and competent?

I wanted a government that would do right but I'm afraid a government that won't do wrong is too much to ask of humanity.

[Armstead]

16. Not to sound like Obama (who I am really pissed off at) but it's all a matter of balance

Any economic system that is in its purest form is bound to succumb to domination by the powerful and greedy.

Also, any ideology in its purest form will do likewise.

That's why checks and balances are necessary. I am a staunch liberal...or progvressive, or whatever yiu want to call it. However, I also recognize that there are inherent flaws in that ideology, and that conservatism does have valid points too. So, ideally, each ideology competes, and when the competition works, we have a system that has the correct balance.

Likewise with economies.

The problem now is that it has become too one-sided. Liberalism has not been allowed to have its proper role in keeping the excesses of unregulated "free market" capitalism under control. Therefore the balance is lost.

In order to correct that, true liberalism and progressive populism has to be reasserted. That includes actions that will rein in the excessive power of the Corporate Oligarchy, and make sure wealth is more widely distributed.

AND allow more room for the better side of human nature to have more influence.

As for Bernie -- Actually he is not alone. There are numerous Democrats in Congress who are similar to him, in varying degrees. The problem there is that the Democratic Party is under the grip of so-called "centrists." One of the problems with centrists (moderate conservatives) like Obama is that they have no problem with the growth of Monopoly Power.

The real job there is to add more Bernies who will actually tell the truth.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. I have no problem anti-trust laws or truth in advertising

or anything that allows people to make free, informed choices.

To me that is proper competition. If Brand X misrepresents their product to me I want to be able to go with Brand Y and give them my business. In time Brand X may clean up their act while Brand Y allows their success to get the better of them or maybe someone will come up with Brand Z that does better than both.

I don't know if I need the government to tax Brand Z into fairness if I, the populist-progressive consumer, am informed and have given my money to Brand Z of my own accord. In fact, if we do try to tax Brand Z into fairness I'd be willing to hazard a guess that X and Y are behind the lobbying effort just like Halliburton and now GE are the White House, not asking for more fairness for their competitors, but looking for ways to enrich their own interests at the expense of competitors, the taxpayer and the populist-progressive consumer.

[Armstead]

23. I doubt taxing companies into fairness is a siolution

Anti-trust laws that keep companies from becoming excessively dominant and ensure competition would do a lot.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. See! I knew we agreed!

Too bad more conversations here aren't as cordial and open.

It has honestly been a pleasure chatting with you.

[Armstead]

27. Thanks

[blindpig]

4. Monopoly is the inevitable outcome of capitalism.

Capitalist competition makes it so. Reform is futile, as long as the capitalists have the ability(money)to influence affairs, therefore they must be expropriated. The Democratic Party is fully dedicated to capitalism, there is no recourse there.

[Armstead]

6. I knew someone woiuld say that. My response is:

If you truly want fundamental change, you have to start with reform. Step One is to at least free the system up more to actually HAVE any meaningful debate or consideration of the larger merits of faults of capitalism as a system.

The fact is that we are living in a capitalist system that is very entrenched and at base, very popular. That is not likely to change in our lifetimes, if ever. So efforts to change everything today are doomed to fail.

Better to make life better for all as much as possible within that system. If some believe that a better system is possible, fine, go for it. Try and convince people, and build alternatives as examples.

But that's much less pressing than trying to make life better in the here and now.

[blindpig]

19. Agreed that the present must be addressed

but at this moment either party is fully dedicated to the most draconian dictates of the investor class and there will be no change in that until there is serious pushback. There is presently no mechanism for pushback but the results of this 'austerity' assure that the seeds of radicalism will find choice ground. We are in for some very tough times and I see no escape in the short term, the entire political class is set against us, a few voices in the wilderness providing contrast and the illusion of debate. As far as capitalism being popular, get back to me in five years.

[Armstead]

24. There's pushback and there's pushback

Meaningful pushback is when enough of the wider population says "Enough of this bullshit" and actually has a way to channel that within the system other than the right-wing corporate Tea Party charade.

To make that happen requires dealing with people on their own terms and in their own framework. Some may march in the streets, and peaceful protest is one way, a la Wisconsin and Ohio. But for those things to take hold, it has to reach ordinary people, and result in changing minds and evidence of actual political progress -- as in policies and laws.....Otherwise it'll be as useless as the marches at the time of the Iraq War debate.

It also requires low-effort possibilities for people. By that I mean involvement without requiring a complete change in their lives and worldview. That's one area where the Tea Party was smart. People can be active Tea Partiers and make a political difference with little personal effort or sacrifice.

You're right, in five years people may be suffering more and angrier. But unless there is a strong, reasonable and effective reform movement within the system, the majority will either react with 1)Apathetic Cynicism or 2) Turning Further to the Right.

That's why I say the answers at this point is not to question the basic tenants of the present system, but to at least make it work better for the majority of the population.....Also, as I noted local initiatives that can provide positive and practical examples of the possibilities for alternative approaches.

Beyond that is just speculation.

[blindpig]

26. Never said it would be easy.

Confronting the ruling power requires commitment and discipline and for that ya can't beat commies.

Wisconsin was a glimmering of the possible. It was stillborn by the diversion of energy into the recalls and other procedures.

The communists do it different, they educate, imparting understanding of how unjust, how unstable and unsustainable capitalism is. Once you understand that it's hard to go back.

It's a hard road but I see no alternative.

[Armstead]

28. Well, I've been through my own political evolutions over the years...

...and I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you on that one.

[blindpig]

29. As have I...

and I have arrived at this conclusion at a rather late date, too late maybe for me to do much good, but as I see it nothing else will do, it is a matter of survival.

[Armstead]

30. As with all things, Time will tell, I guess....

[hifiguy]

5. Antitrust enforcement is as dead as Dillinger

and has been since Raygun. Clinton made a few halfhearted runs at Microsoft, but that's been it for the last thirty years.

[Armstead]

7. Sleeping -- It doesn't have to be dead

It's just a matter of re-awakening it, which is within the realm of possibility.

[Blue_Tires]

8. If by "ignore", you mean "encourage and personally profit from..."

[Armstead]

9. That too....

[fivepennies]

12. I'll make it even more simplistic.

A society cannot long survive a debt based currency, even when the debt isn't held by a monopolistic private consortium of bankers.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/debt-money-money-debt

As Shakespeare said, "neither a borrower nor lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend."

[Armstead]

13. To be honest.....

I kind of get lost in the weeds when it comes to issues like the Federal Reserve.

But, as with all issues, I believe if we at least start to re-decentralize the economy, and the financial system and media and political influence, it would open up more room to debate and deal with those issues too.

[fivepennies]

15. Many people don't understand the federal reserve,

and it can't be explained in a sentence or two. That's why I posted the link.

Decentralization won't help unless and until we ditch the DEBT based function of money. Sure, people who make money by gaming money wouldn't like that at all because they'd have to WORK for their share, but its fundamental to equality and justice in commerce.

[Armstead]

17. There are people working to change that at the grass-roots level

There is a movement that might be called progressive decentralize that emphasizes greater autonomy among local economies and alternative sources of trade, such as local currencies (which are in place in a number of places).

I will read the article u linked to, and try and digest it. Thanks.

[fivepennies]

20. Absolutely!!! Local/alternative currencies!!!

That's one of my favorite subjects.

You're welcome for the link. Prepare to see red.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Ignore hell. The neo-cons and neo-libs embrace it.

[Armstead]

21. I know --A related problem is the "mushy middle"

It's people (politicians or non) who call themselves "progressives" or "liberals" and may think they have the best of intentions -- but say and do NOTHING to stop this.

There are worthy exceptions. But they have to somehow help break the Democratic party from the choke-hold of the neo-libs and neo-cons, and the mushy and bring back the honest definition of centrist.

[Armstead]

31. Obama sucks....Obama's great

Just trying to stir up some interest in the subject.