Monopolization of the economy and politics. The issue we keep ignoring

[Armstead]

That's the elephant in the room that the Democrats should stop ignoring.

Read about some of the mergers and aquisitions that are still occurring in most industries, including health indurance, the media and others.

The Democratic Party should have stood up and challenged this trend by using anti-trust regulation when it started about 30 years ago. If they had, we would not be nearly in the mess we are in today, both ecponomically and socially.

But it has been ignored and continues to be ignored. This is an issue the Democrats should start raising. If presented clearlt, it would resonate among a lot of people, IMHO.

[acmejack]

1. Very true.

Is it too late? These behemoth multi-nationals are almost a law unto themselves now, what is to keep them from simply moving whatever remains of their operations to friendly climes should we try to pressure them?

[Armstead]

5. Not too late

Part of what should be done is policies that say "If you want to sell it here, you have to make it here."

Obviously, not quite that blunt, but we can initiatie (or restoire) policies that have that general effect.

[Goldensilence]

2. it was purposely ignored.

as part of the oligarchy the iron heel now moves.

[Armstead]

13. Some yes -- But i wish the Dems who aren't partr of it would come out

Paul Welltone in 1998:


And we need to be talking about those issues that are not on the table: We live in an era awash in special interest campaign money, and the Congressional majority does their bidding to block campaign finance reform. We live in an era of increasing monopolization, but the Congressional majority speaks as if antitrust law were abolished. We live in an era of a frighteningly global economy, which has in the space of the past few weeks plunged millions of Asians from the middle class into poverty, but the Congressional majority clings to their laissez-faire orthodoxy. William Greider has written excellent pieces on this last subject this month in "The Nation" and "The Washington Post."

[rman]

3. Yup, capitalism eliminates competition,

It's there for all to see.

Which is the exact opposite of what we were told around the time when supply side economics was introduced - "capitalism creates competition". Which is probably why we don't hear that argument very often any more.

[Armstead]

6. I don't think that's inevitable but...

...in orsder to prevent it requires a political party that actually defends the idea of real competition and economic diversity and otehr rules of the road to protect competative free enterprise from the abuses of the oligarchs.

Unfortunateluy the Democratic Party has fallen down on the job.

[rman]

10. I agree (sorry for being boring),

I view capitalism as a phenomenon; the tendency of humans (and many other animals) to collect stuff for "meager years". In and of itself it's only natural, but in mass-societies it can get to run amok. It must be controlled. One of the important question regarding capitalism that is not being addressed is how much stuff should one be allowed to collect. Another is which and how much collected stuff should better be stored collectively. In smaller communities in the old days it was common to store certain stuff collectively (in some cases it still is); see granaries for example.

[Armstead]

12. How much to collect at the expense of others

I think the missing link, in political terms, is the issue of who gets hurt by the excessive acquisi9tiveness and power lust of the wealthy and the large corporations.

People don't begrudge wealth, but I think they would if they make the connectioin when disgusting wealth is accumulated by ripping weeryone else off.

(P.S. Agreement isn;t boring. I was just giving my old DU buddy Ulysses some grief.)

[The2ndWheel]

16. Ironic that

we have to rely on one of the two parties that have power and don't want any more competition to defend the idea of competition.

Not that competition is all that great. It eventually leads to hatred, and rage, and murder; in a political and economic sense.

Then there's monolithic control, which leads to hatred...and rage...and...murder.

Wow, sometimes you wonder if the system is worth fighting for. Sometimes. By sometimes I mean everyday, but that's just me.

[Armstead]

17. There's reasonable competition and unreasonable competition

I once had an interesting discussion with a "realistic socialist" economist about this, and he pointed out an interesting aspect of competition.

Basically when there is ACTUAL HEALTHY competition, numerous companies compete on the basis of quality, service, price, etc.

However, if the market is allowed to dwindle through consolidation, that form of competition is superceded by a nastier form of gaining unfair advantage instead of offering choices and alternatives. The few monopolists also, paradoxically, become collaborators to protect their common interests as monopolists.

He explaiend it better than I did, but the point is that protecting diversity in markets is also protecting a healthier form of competition.

[ulysses]

4. much agreed.

(as usual. :) )

[Armstead]

7. That's boring

We have to find something to disagree on....


Or at least revive the old "DU Lefty Weirdo Tag team" from the good old days.....Speaking of which, whatever happened to Irate Citizen?

[ulysses]

8. I'm not sure.

It has been a while since I saw him around, now that you mention it...

[Armstead]

9. I hope he resolved his Iraq problem okay.

[ulysses]

15. I think he had done so

and had started his information site to help other COs.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. K&R

[Armstead]

14. Kicked but I can't recommend

Maybe we should be able to recommend our own threads....Okay maybe not.

[mdmc]

18. too late to r

:kick: