Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Monopolization of America
You walk into your local convenience store and head to the cold walk-in beer room in the back.
The choice is overwhelming.
Budweiser, Michelob, Bud Light, Busch Light, Stella Artois, Grolsch, Kirin,Tsingtao, Corona, Negra Modelo, Rolling Rock, Widmer, Miller and Coors.
In fact, all of these beers are controlled by two companies.
MillerCoors under the direction of South African Breweries (SAB) and AnheuserBusch In Bev.
Two multinational corporations controlling the beer choices of 300 million Americans.
And it's not just beer.
One single multinational corporation dominates the world supply of eyeglass stores.
One dominates the milk supply.
Barry Lynn goes down the list of industries.
And he finds a similar story across the board.
A handful of multinational corporations controlling each industry - or the supply chains of each industry.
Such dominant monopolies were illegal just thirty years ago.
But that all changed with Ronald Reagan and Robert Bork.
A corporatist oligarchy took hold.
President Obama has promised aggressive antitrust enforcement.
But Lynn says it's pie in the sky.
"It will take more than a lawsuit or two to overthrow America's corporatist oligarchy and restore a model of capitalism that protects our rights as property holders and citizens," Lynn argues in his new book - Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction (Wiley, 2010).
Antitrust law was developed to protect the political economy from extreme concentrations of corporate power.
Then came Reagan and Bork.
In 1978, Bork said we should have a consumer welfare test.
If economic concentration is good for the consumer - think Wal-Mart - then let it be.
Never mind the citizen.
In 1981, William Baxter, head of Reagan's Antitrust Division, announced that he would be guided by "an efficiency test."
"When Baxter first talked to the press in 1981, he said - we are going to impose an efficiency test," Lynn told Corporate Crime Reporter last week. "Those were the words he used. It was only a little bit later that they framed it as a consumer welfare test. And Robert Bork came up with that. Bork's book - The Antitrust Paradox - came out in 1978 and he floated this idea of a consumer welfare test."
"It took Baxter a couple of years to get the messaging together. They locked into the consumer welfare test. And it helped to bring along so many folks in the consumer movement. And for some reason, after focusing on safety, which is a fantastic thing that Ralph Nader did, they began fixating on prices. And there is a whole political analysis as to why they began fixating on prices. What groups were they targeting with that fixation?"
"In 1981, that marked a revolutionary change in how we applied our anti-monopoly laws. No longer was the primary consideration political. The primary consideration was prices and consumer welfare."
Lynn says that Bork didn't understand why the consumer movement didn't come after him on the consumer welfare test.
"In 1993, Bork put out a second edition of the Antitrust Paradox," Lynn said. "And in the introduction, he says - I don't understand what happened here. I thought the socialists were doing to come out and fight us tooth and nail on this. And they never did. We didn't think we were going to get this through. And we did." Mention the word "socialist" in this context, and Lynn sees red.
"In this country, the group that tends to point its finger and calls the other people socialists most effectively tends to win," Lynn said.
"And when they win - they get to socialize their own risks."
"So, you have this elite in this country that for a generation has been raving about socialism."
"And what were they doing in the meantime? They were socializing all of their risks."
"As was laid bare to us in September 2008. Larry Summers put it best - what the bankers did, he said, was they privatized all of their profits and socialized all of their risks."
"You really have to target the other people and call them socialists."
"We have just seen the most massive era of socialization in this country that we've ever seen."
89 Comments so far
Show All"...MillerCoors under the direction of South African Breweries (SAB) and AnheuserBusch In Bev."
AnheuserBusch in Bev. ??????
Created by merger of Interbrew and AmBev and headquartered in Belgium. Owns brands throughout the world, including Bass, Stella Artois, Hoegaarden, Beck's, ...
www.ab-inbev.com/
"Larry Summers put it best - what the bankers did, he said, was they privatized all of their profits and socialized all of their risks(losses)."
Said by 'Larry Summers'? Well maybe, but if he understands, why did he facilitate the process?.. This is something Noam Chomsky has been saying for decades. And like most things Noam got it right, decades before the rest. Which illustrates that how we got here is not a mystery, and never has been. Furthermore, the future we are currently moving towards, is well know, unless we get together and make changes now. No more votes for Democons nor Republicons.
". . . why did he facilitate the process?"
Because he's a goddamned banker.
q
Yup - just check his resume. Oh-son-of-a-bitch, one time head of Goldman-Sachs.
And I assume you meant bankster?
I hate to beat a dead horse but unbridled capitalism will always result in monopoly, oligopoly, price fixing, and collusion. There is no big surprise here. What surprises me is that this author thinks there was a golden era of capitalism. It never existed. This isn't about restoring a model of capitalism. It's about driving a stake through the heart of this beast, ending it once and for all. An economic system based on greed and avarice will never provide any benefit to humanity. What bothers me is the fact that this author can't even lay down the basic myth of capitalism. He might as well write an article about restoring the reputation of Santy Claus as it has been dragged through the mud of a holiday season run amok by rampant commercialism.
your rant is very disrespectful of the Funding Fathers!
Actually, this horse is still alive. The viewpoint of most CD articles is just like Mokhiber's. It's the liberal narrative that says, "Before Reagan, capitalism was closely regulated and under control. While there were abuses, we the people had some power to fight back and enforce our rights against the plutocracy. Since Reagan, we've entered a new era of mutant capitalism where the corporatocracy has devolved into an unchecked monster and greed has reigned supreme. We must fight this monster by returning to the era of tight regulations."
I would say this viewpoint applies to 90% of the CD articles and most of the replies as well. It's so pervasive that it's assumed without question. As you say, there was no golden era of capitalism, though the 50's and 60's are usually treated as that era. Since many CDers grew up in that era (so did I), it takes on the patina of an era of youthful idealism that had such power at that time. Most CD participants seem to want to return to that era, but I think that nostalgia for that era is regressive and locks us into strategies that are not suitable for the age we now live in.
A helpful distinction might be between those who want to "exit the crisis" by rescuing capitalism in one form or other. Mokhiber, for instance, wants tougher enforcement of anti-trust laws. Without a socialist strategic vision, tighter regulations would only aid capitalism by making it slightly more humane. The same applies to most of the "green" initiatives which would rescue capitalism from the destruction it is wreaking on the planet. As progressives, we must support them, but we must constantly strive to integrate them into a larger strategic vision.
Mokhiber's generation remembers a time when capitalism was forced to be more humane and that acts as a magnet for most current visions of a better world. What so few seem capable of is a truly radical vision of humanity such as actually existed in the 60's - an exit from capitalism in crisis into a completely new form of organizing society.
Boyd and Lefty, have you read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" ? She makes the clear distinction between disaster capitalism and regulated capitalism. I would also add that in Europe, regulated capitalism exists and yet it feels like the last vestige of people's socialism. Have you been to Europe? You would be amazed as to how people are entirely grateful and well-mannered about socialism compared to the USA that invents fears about socialism giving no choices while going mum on disaster capitalism locking them into poverty. I will have more to say on this when I return.
Indeed I have, Jennifer and it made a strong impact on my political thinking. I think it was a ground-breaking theoretical and historical tour-de-force. As to the idea of regulated capitalism, as a practical matter, it never seems to last. True, it has lasted in Europe for many decades now, but as new generations of capitalists elect new sets of compliant politicians, the regulations get weaker and weaker, even in Europe.
As I've said in another post, I have many fellow travelers and professional contacts in Europe. I'm starting to become much more active in European political forums, simply because the political discussion tends to be much higher caliber and less constrained by the lack of political education which forces progressives to waste huge amounts of time explaining basic concepts such as socialism, anarchism and economic principles.
I look forward to your comments when you return!
Boyd, in Eastern Europe, the weaknesses of regulated capitalism are apparent but not as bad as in the US.
As for the forums, this forum is the best one for us progressives and liberals tired of being left out in the political cold. There are usually fewer Obamabots and Limbaugh dittoheads. I must say that Alternet.org was a shocker as those folks were probably finding out that more people are turning to CD because there are strong progressive independent voices to lighten our spirits. Aside from the sex and food articles, there are plenty of strong articles critiquing Obama and Congress just like this site. Get a hold of the recent article on Obama's favorite CEO (http://www.alternet.org/news/145664). It is a great article to use against another Obamabot or apologist if you must talk to one.
P.S.: Thanks again. :)
Thanks for the tip about Alternet, Jennifer. I read the article and I've seen other critiques of that interview such as Krugman's on CD - the Oh.My.God article where he brands Obama as totally clueless with respect to the American public's feelings toward the monsters that created this economic train wreck.
My response to that article and this one are the same. I never thought Obama was anything but a new political brand, a slick marketing campaign built on nostalgia for past progressive movements. I'm not even surprised that he would praise people like Fred Smith and Donald Blankenship, since they are members of the class that elected him. As I said, it's really Krugman that is clueless if he expects Obama to act in any other way. The opinions of the American public have long since ceased to count as factors of significance in Washington's political calculus.
What does count is the actual relationship between Washington and the power elite on Wall Street and in the board rooms of the major transnational corporations. Corporate executives now form the political directorate and professional politicians in the Congress and the Executive branch have been relegated to the middle levels of power. Not politicians, but corporate executives, sit with the military and plan the organization of the war efforts in the Middle East. The politicians merely carry out their role as go-fers. The purpose of the state is to protect the interests of the powerful that require collective measures.
For instance, during serious recessions, economic men feel the need of a politician at once safe and possessing vote appeal. Having such a politician helps them in many ways, as Obama is currently demonstrating in spades. Just to take a single example, normally in times such as these some type of real financial reform would at least be on the table. But Obama has managed to effectively gut even the possibility of real reform. Score one for the power elite.
Hi Jennifer,
I have been to Europe and Americans seem to be viewed as hoggish scoundrels by many. Rightfully so. Bastardized Thatcher socialism has left a sour taste in many a Brit's mouth. They are well-mannered about socialism because they successfully implemented it. That whole situation is under intense attack from the corporate fascist forces in the US and let us hope that they can withstand the assault.
I've read articles by Klein but haven't read her book. She does an excellent job of documenting the symptoms and failures of a capitalist society run amok. I am unable to grasp any sort of vision from her in terms of extricating ourselves from this mess. I find this true for many of the so called leftist pundits we have today.
Speaking of Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair is to her just as Obama is to Raygun from what I understand of these leaders.
I've heard him referred to as "Tory Blair". US influence over there is disheartening. As a case in point, the BBC is a shadow of what it once was.
In Europe, even regulated capitalism feels more like people's socialism. I wasn't alive from 1945-1970 to see what regulated capitalism was like in those years but I take it that even in those years, people in the USA favored regulated capitalism from an individualist point of view compared to Europe somewhat favoring it from a collective oriented point of view, correct?
RichM, most of what you said I am seeing in my visits. Your last paragraph on the EU and the US military is interesting. I have heard people from all across the political spectrum saying that the EU depends on the US military. I guess that could be true but I don't notice it in the communities. On the other hand, I have had to wonder why the EU just won't cut off business relations with the US for misbehaving especially in Iraq. Your explanation on the EU depending on the US military seems to connect it. I will have to take a closer look at the ruling capitalist class if I can but so far, people in Europe are vigilant about them compared to people in the USA ready to enrich Donald Trump even at their own expense. Even Eastern Europe has some decency when it comes to helping the poor and downtrodden.
Well stated, RichM. I just submitted another post along these lines which tried to make the point that we don't have to settle for a "golden age of capitalism" that never was and will certainly never return. We can envision real economic justice, not settle for the crumbs which the current oligarchy might occasionally let drop.
No doubt, many will say this is impractical and we must be grateful for the crumbs which tighter regulation might bring us - at least until the next generation of capitalists elects a new set of politicians to overturn the regulations. We need to stop thinking like triaging Democrats and start thinking like Marx and Lenin.
thank you for stating (better than I would or maybe even could) my reactions as well. I would only add that people should re-read Michael Harrington's "Twilight of Capitalism" in which he deals extensively with the issue of "relief vents" appended to the capitalist system to prevent more revolutionary action. This does not mean - nor does Harrington assert - that laws limiting hours worked per week, the New Deal, etc. are to be discarded; just don't see them as fixes and final victories.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
>>As you say, there was no golden era of capitalism, though the 50's and 60's are usually treated as that era. Since many CDers grew up in that era (so did I), it takes on the patina of an era of youthful idealism that had such power at that time. Most CD participants seem to want to return to that era, but I think that nostalgia for that era is regressive and locks us into strategies that are not suitable for the age we now live in.
What most people seem to be in denial about is the fact the US took a sharp turn towards socialism in the 40's. Social security, strong unions, progressive tax rates are examples of these socialist initiatives. The country prospered to new heights. To try to couch this as the golden era of capitalism is absurd. It was the nascent rise of socialism. Unfortunately, Reagan killed that baby in the crib. Any of us who lived through the cultural revolution of the 60's realizes the positive things that came out of it. Attacks on sexism and racism, the rejection of war, the realization of environmental problems and initiatives to rectify the situation. How could anyone who lived through that era not look back fondly upon it? At the same time, I agree with you. The world is greatly changed since the 60's and old strategies are not always applicable. Nonetheless, we glimpsed the potential of a socialist, environmentally aware society and it was good. The right wing has been beyond devious in their attacks on these initiatives and the article about empire and imperialism is a prime example of this fact. They have redefined the dictionary and words like socialism are dirty words today. We need to take those words back and stuff them down their throats.
While many of the challenges we face are unique and new, many of them are the same as those of previous generations. The right in this country has left no gain unchallenged and we are seeing regressive backsliding. Rather than being a 10% minority, we need to work hard to counter this slide to the right and get people to see the ugly reality of this situation.
Thanks for the thought provoking reply. Let's hope we can work together to realize that exit you speak of.
You're right. But how many "left analysts" are actually radicals? They would have to draw the same conclusion you have, the obvious conclusion if one doesn't have liberal ideological blinders on. Even the well-respected Naomi Klein has reformist solutions. The author wouldn't have a job otherwise.
Hi Tom,
Critical thinking is not radical. Each one of us needs to think critically and call a turd a turd. As for the author not having a job, I've touched on this in previous posts. There seems to be a cottage industry of pseudo-leftist pundits that have sprung up in this country. As best I can tell, they are engaging in "manufactured dissent". Look at guys like Ralph Nader as a case in point. The man has no real leftist accomplishments under his belt, he has amassed considerable wealth working the cottage industry and his articles never touch on real leftist ideology. Yet he is held up as a buddha on purportedly leftist websites like this one.
As Malcolm X said, those who stand for nothing fall for anything.
Critical thinking is not unique to Radicals, true. But, bringing a systemic or structural analysis to the problem at hand is radical. It is what defines radicalism: one "goes to the root" of the problem.
"Critical thinking" is a purely generic and learnable skill that is completely divorced from politics etc.
"In fact, all of these beers are controlled by two companies."
This is why I can't find Pilsner Urquell (the best beer in the world) on tap in Atlanta anymore.
q
(the best beer in the world) ?
Oranjeboom!
WALL STREET OF AMERICA
formerly usa
EMPIRE DESTRUCTION
1980 to 2007
20 YEARS OF 3 CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENTS
18 years Conservative Senate
12 years Conservative House
6 years Total Conservative Control
Redistribution of Wealth to top 20%.
Folk! It is downhill slide for Middle Class.
FACTS---numbers rounded-
1946--1% owned 30% of Total Wealth
1980—20%--a 33% decline due to Estate Tax and High Top Income Tax Rate.
thence cometh conservatism
1989-36%
80% Increase in 8 years of Reaganism
1993-47%
2007--20% owned 93% of Total non home Financial Wealth
80% owned equity in homes.
Most major corporations are owned by WALL STREET RICH MEN CASINO
In 1945, corporations paid 35.4% of federal revenues and 7.4% in 2003
In 2000, 45% of corporations with revenue over 50 million paid no federal tax
Five Wall Street Banks control 75% of all Bank Deposits in America. 5.
Two control 20%.
Think that is not POWER???
FACT CHECK
In 8 years of Bush with 6 years of Total Control
They (wall street rich) created a Net New Jobs of 31,000(19.000?) per month.
Why? That is NET. You take the new jobs created and subtract the ones sent to China, etc
31,000! Wow! 19,000?
Bush took over after Clinton had created 237,000 Net New Jobs per month.
Reagan took Carter 218,000 net new jobs down to 175,000 per month.
Clinton left Bush a spending of 1830 B Per Year.
Bush doubled it to 3600 B.
Bush inherited a 5700B Debt from Clinton. He took it to 11,500B
20 years of 3 conservative presidents did this horrible thing.
Took the Debt of less than 1000B after 200 years and added on 8000B.
In 2009 they are spinning big time to blame Obama for huge debt.
Conservatives will spend millions to coverup their Big Recession.
Much of that 8000B Debt add-on went to WALL STREET GAMBLERS.
The people do not know what has happened to them.
Shhh! Do not awaken sleeping Democrats.
Forbes list of 400 Richest reveals how many became Billionaires via corporate
takeovers and Hedge Gambling
Right Wingers yell--- Rich Pay most of taxes.
Income Taxes!Yes! They have most of the income.
From 1997 to 2001 the rich 1% took 24% of total national individual income growth
Yet! Conservatives transferred much of taxation from Rich to Middle Class. Reagan elimination of REVENUE SHARING a disaster for Middle Class where taxes were transferred from Rich Income taxes to Middle Class in State and Local Taxes.
Was it a Designed Act of taxation transfer by Conservatives.
In 2008 the Middle Class paid 30% of nominal Income in Federal-State-Local Taxes.
Top 10% paid 30% also. Progressive tax system?
Social Security Tax Increase in 1983 was it designed to hit the Middle Class and ease on the rich?
Greenspan + Reagan. 6.2% Tax on Middle Class. One earns $50,000 pays 6.2%. Earns $1,000,00 pays 6.4%. Earns $10,000,000 pays 1/10th of 1%. By design to keep rich rich?
Was Destruction of S&Ls a deliberate act of wealth transfer from 400 local investors to individual Rich on Wall Street?
Key actor Michael Milken became a Multiple Billionaire with income of 550 Million in one year from raiding S&L deposits (plus) for his Rich Corporate Raiders on Wall Street.
Raiders like Perelman and Ichan became multiple Billionaires.
Sweat of Brow? Ho Ho.
Bush I had to borrow 140 Billion on 40 year bonds to pay for the raids on S&L's by Wall Streeters.
140B creates many Billionaires and Millionaires. Depositors money was used by those Corporate Raiders and bankrupted the S&L then the government pay off to depositors by Federal Deposit Insurance created Debt for Middle Class.
The Tax Panel estimates that in 2010 the top 1 million with incomes exceeding $500,000 will earn 241 Billion more than 80 Million who will earn under $40,000. Christ, where art thou.
RAPE OF MIDDLE CLASS 1980-2007
Same ideology gave us Great Depression now Great Recession.
It is not a Depression due to:
Democratic Social Safety Nets such as
Social Security and Medicare and Unemployment tinsurance
Only the uninformed vote to send conservatives to Washington.
Some type of Revolt will take place in next decade.
Democrats will continue to allow Conservatives with their huge right wing talk shows spreading lies to blame them.
Democrats need a national Megaphone informing all the people as to what has been done and how they have been RAPED by a few million RICH on Wall Street who have taken their Wealth.
I ask one thing.
PROVE ME WRONG. With numbers and facts not usual vile name calling
clarence swinney-burlington nc cswinney2@triad.rr.com
author-Lifeaholic-Workaholic to Lifeaholic success
author-unpublished
All American Party-How Democrats created a great successful Middle Class and how Conservatives are determined to destroy it
"Democrats need a national Megaphone informing all the people as to what has been done and how they have been RAPED by a few million RICH on Wall Street who have taken their Wealth."
Why assume Democrats even care? They are reaping/raping as much as, if not more than, the Republicans from this corrupt system.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Swinney talks about the "jobs Clinton created" but ignores the facts of his era. Bill Clinton LUCKED in to the techno-boom that led to huge increases in worker productivity and Dot.com IPOs in the early to mid-1990s. That techno-boom had to do with technological advances radically increasing the efficiency of the workplace, not Democratic Party policies to "create jobs." Clinton did NOTHING to push corporate America to couple wage increases with increases in worker productivity. What the lazy sell-out did was ride the wave of techno-jobs while implementing "free trade" and banking deregulation policies that laid the groundwork for massive job losses that are ongoing. Moreover, Clinton ignored subsidies for corporations offshoring American jobs just as Bush II and Obama have done (until Obysmal's recent SOTU lip service about it).
Swinney doesn't cite the numbers of high paying, unionized, fully benefitted middle-class manufacturing jobs lost as a result of Clinton signing off on NAFTA and the WTO. Clinton himself ordered his Secretary of Labor to STOP keeping statistics on U.S. job losses resulting from NAFTA because they were too embarrassing even two years after NAFTA was enacted. Bush never resumed keeping those stats and Obungle sure as hell hasn't. That was from one (1) "free trade" treaty alone. Estimates on manufacturing job loss come from a variety of sources that put the figure between 15 to 20 million middle-class jobs gone with the win. That was BEFORE the housing bubble imploded and killed another 18 million-plus jobs.
He, like all Dim apologists, ignores the fact the Clinton deregulated the big banks, gutted Glass-Steagall and deregulated derivatives--setting up and joining in with the perfect Republican crimes that the DLC Dims like Obama are still aiding and abetting. Swinney ignores the recent Democratic big push to re-appoint housing bubble hatchet man Ben Bernanke to the Fed Chairmanship. He ignores the crucial role of Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin and other Clinton apparatchiks like Lawrence Summers and Clinton cronies like Alan Greenspan in generating the bubble as well as the job and home losses produced by that Democratic Party generated bubble.
While it's true that the Reagan Revolution first led the country down this fascist garden path, it does the country no good whatsoever to ignore the brutal fact that the Democratic Party gradually conformed with the Republican agenda to the point that now there is all too little a difference between their economic policies; that they are both framed in the neo-liberal mythology and both utterly lack any intention whatsoever to rebuild the middle-class or to create substantial numbers of new manufacturing jobs (green or not).
"FACTS"
"---numbers rounded-"
lol! "rounded"...
"FACT CHECK"
No sources cited for your "rounded" numbers. Capital letters don't substitute.
"PROVE ME WRONG. With numbers and facts"
No, first you cite your sources for "numbers rounded" "FACTS". There is no obligation to prove you wrong, we can just assume it until you say where all the "FACTS" come from. Then we will go from there.
"Bush inherited a 5700B Debt from Clinton. He took it to 11,500B"
Where has it gone from there? And you are supposed to compare the debt number to GDP. And pesides, it's Congress that spends money, not presidents.
I've seen through this sham for years. What we've had for the last 20 years is the capitalist version of "central planning," once jokingly associated with the Soviet Union.
Don't drink beer. It makes you fat and stupid. Wake and Bake
instead.
"Don't drink beer". Too late.
"It makes you fat and stupid". You're sadly misinformed.
"Wake and Bake..." What the fuck is that?
The corporate/fascists say; if you pass laws that protects the consumer and does not allow us to deceive the people then we will make less money. Therefore we will not praise you as a moral society, we will condemn you as socialists!
Except that it's not socialism, it's just the new face of capitalism. Socializing the risks and privatizing the profits is what they've always done, only now more so than ever. This doesn't make it socialism. I totally agree wtih Boyd Collins' post. We don't need to return to some mythic golden era of capitalism. We need to progress toward a humane socialism. Trying to fix a system that is corrupt and heartless to the core is a fool's errand. Since Reagan, capitalism has been committing slow suicide, even as it plunders and rapes the world in a vain attempt at self-resucitation. Larry Summers and Robert Bork are merely its more recent undertakers.
And have you ever noticed the often used phrase "they (our military) are being deployed to 'protect our interests'?" Yet they never, EVER specify what those 'interests' are. It is corporations that are pissing people off in other countries with what they do. And instead of those corporations paying for their own security, the cost is passed on to 'We The People' by using our military. Yet none of this seems to piss the tea-baggers off. I guess that's because of how shallow their pea-brains are. But mention that I'm getting $200/mo. food assistance and the baggers wig the fuck out.
Unbelievable.
The military is the largest jobs/welfare program in the history of the US.
Good post, Ephraim. Obviously a lot more could be said about this along the lines of Struggle's post that brought in Lenin's analysis of state monopoly capitalism. \
As strange as it might sound, the monopolisation of the capitalist system may actually represent a more favourable circumstance for building planned economies. Now that most of the world's resources rest in a very few hands, seizing control of a few corporations could lead quickly to global control over the means of production. Back in the 1960s, you would have had to take over thousands of companies in order to significant swathes of the economy. Today, expropriation of the top 150 companies would probably allow us to control the vast majority of the world's resources. For instance, 99% of Britain’s electricity is supplied by six giant firms and the proportion is similar in the U.S. There has also been huge monopolization in the financial sector. The largest five U.S. banks now hold $9trn in assets. Taking over these banks would be easier today than ever before and, in the right hands, would yield rapid results toward creating participatory economic patterns.
If we could allow ourselves to dream for a moment, think of what scientific planning, which already takes place inside these capitalist enterprises, could accomplish if applied to the entire publicly owned economy. The results would be epic. There would be full employment with decent wages throughout the world. The cost of production would be cut dramatically along with the price of goods. Without the inherent waste and inefficiency of capitalism, affordable housing, free healthcare and education could be provided for all.
The point is that we don't have to settle for a "golden age of capitalism" that never was and will certainly never return. We can envision real economic justice, not settle for the crumbs which the current oligarchy might occasionally let drop.
Making lemonade out of lemons? Thanks for the sliver of hope your post offers up. It is sorely needed.
Thanks, Lefty. I think it would be great if more CD posters could become engaged in envisioning what a world without exploitation would look like.
Wilbur and I used to talk about the problem of monopolies a lot in the Sixties. It's pretty simple really--we've closed the barn door after the cows are all gone. We've got to get them back in again. Okay, everybody, get to work. Chase down those cows!
Also, as everyone ought to know, the best beer is Samuel Smith's Oatmeal Stout. Mmm...oats.
The famous Mister Ed.
Why would you post a comment that basically says; we're stupid, you're smart, we need to wake up, the cows are out of the barn, resistance is futile, give up. Are you trying to say that you want to justify your giving up by getting us to quit?
I can't figure out how your comment is supposed to help us?
Thank you very much for your inquiry.
Neither Wilbur nor I believe that we are particularly smart. After all, I am only a horse. And Wilbur is just, well, Wilbur.
We were just observing that this corporate monopolization problem has been an issue for a long, long time and most people just let the cows keep walking out of the barn, one by one. It has been very illuminating to observe this incremental process that has made such a profound change in how our whole society operates.
By the way, as you may learn if you study my own background, I am very determined and do not give up easily. Quit?!! Mr. Ed? No my friend, when I said chase down those cows, I meant it. Which cows, you may be wondering--and that's a fair question. Okay, for starters:
Corporations must be deprived of personhood.
Glass-Steagall must be reinstituted to separate banking from speculation.
Lobbying (organized bribery) must be prohibited in the US, as it is in most other modern democracies.
Elections must be fully-funded by the public.
The media must be completely restructured to serve the public rather than corporations.
The U.S. Senate--whose real purpose is to prevent or fatally-weaken popular legislative efforts--must be abolished.
A parliamentary system of government that honors the views of minorities must be instituted.
Okay?
But I agree with one thing you said: We do need to wake up. Oh my yes!
Most people seem to believe that other people will somehow step forward and solve all these problems for them, or there will be time to do something later if things get bad enough--but they are wrong. We are running out of time to fix this mess.
Everybody needs to be in crisis mode right now, not later, and we need to take control of this republic and turn it into a real democracy.
Okay everyone, chase down those cows!
The famous Mister Ed.
Ah, finally we're treated to some horse-sense! Does Francis concur?
Edit: You know Francis the Talking Mule.
You never fooled me, Ed.
I knew you were lip-synching.
Actually, that was Wilbur who was lip-synching. It drove the rest of us crazy, I can tell you. We never knew what he was supposed to be saying until we saw the show later on. When we were filming, Wilbur always spoke in his native tongue, Tagalog--or, to be more accurate, Taglish. It was pretty confusing, but it often made for some interesting plot twists.
Thank you very much for your comment.
The famous Mister Ed
how is Wilbur these days?
I assume he types these comments, at your instruction?
Thank you for your inquiry about Wilbur. As far as I'm concerned, he was the real star of the show.
Wilbur is doing quite well. He still works as an architect, but limits his work to barn doors and horse stalls--primarily in the style of Frank Lloyd Wright.
Regarding my participation on this website, when the weather is bad and we cannot get outside, I dictate my comments to Wilbur and he types them up on the old Underwood typewriter. We've hooked it up to the internet with a set of jumper cables and tinfoil. But when the weather is clear, we go out to the old alfalfa field behind the barn and I type my comments myself on a giant 50 foot-wide keyboard we have built on the ground. It is quite enjoyable to type out in the fresh air, and it is good exercise, too. But I just hate it when I accidentally hit the "Caps Lock" key. What is that darn key for, anyway??!!
My best regards to you,
The famous Mister Ed
>>"We have just seen the most massive era of socialization in this country that we've ever seen
Here we go again. Blame the mess that is Capitalism on Socialism.
Capitalism is the problem. Capitalism led to the bank bailout. Capitalism led to the massive shift in wealth and power and has always done so.
Shifting risks and costs onto the people is NOT Socialism. It is Capitalism. That is how Capitalism profits off labor.
When a countries bulk of wealth and assets and productive capacity are in the hands of a small few IT INEVITABLE that they will not be "Allowed to fail".
The term "Socializing risk" is another clever way of trying to make it look like the Concepts of Socialism at fault here.
Would it be better if we used the terms, "internalizing corporate profits to the corporations" and "externalizing corporate costs to the public"?