I believe in capitalism, but there comes a time when to few get too powerful. Just pondering an idea, and would like to know what others think. What if we had a cap on businesses? What rules might we put in place? A few thought:
1) No business can buy their compe ion if it will cause them to exceed 10% of the market.
2) Business can exceed 10% of the market with growth, but gets taxed an additional 1% for every percentage they have above 20% of a market share.
Now of course, such changes would have potential problems that need addressed. Any one game?
Monopolies and collusive cartels, an UNFREE market, are a (large) business' objective.
With no effective compe ion, one abusively extracts excessive wealth for very probably minimum quality, even ty, often harmful products.
I repeat (since the top-level truths are simple and few):
There is no possibility of PROGRESS in USA towards regulations that prevent monopolies, collusion, cartels, due to WC's politicians protecting and enriching the 1% and corporations.
How about getting past your thoughts of impossibility, and think of what would help if we could get it implemented.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 01-22-2013 at 05:38 AM.
We got in this never-ending disaster for the 99% and nirvana for the 1% by YOU RIGHT-WINGERS cutting taxes and deregulating.
Well, if you are going to be a broken record about the 99%/1%, then I'm done with you.
and you IGNORE the real causes while ing around uselessly how to fix the problems without touching the causes and the culprits.
Consider something.
Is the 99%/1% the problem, or the symptom?
I'm not game for something like this where we just come up with a formula and remove any and all consideration about individual cir stances. I think you need to look at each industry differently and make decisions as to whether or not consumers/taxpayers are actually being harmed. Five banks controlling 75% of their market bothers me and I think we need to chop them all into several smaller pieces. Two soda companies controlling 75% of their market doesn't bother me in the least.
I'm also not a fan of the 1% surcharge tax for each percentage of market share over 20%. Why punish a company for consumers overwhelmingly preferring their product over their compe ors?
we have anti trust laws. have there been any significant US anti trust actions in the last ten years?
Depends what you consider significant. I can't think of the last time an anti-trust law was used to break up a company, but you do hear about anti-trust regulators intervening in mergers and acquisitions from time to time. AT&T's failed attempt to buy T-mobile being one example that comes to mind.
This is actually a good topic, especially coming from WC. Capitalism, when it was conceived, did not envisage corporations becoming colossal cross-border en ies that can heavily influence lawmaking, play countries off one against the other to give them favorable conditions and generally try to avoid paying taxes and obeying country-specific regulations.
Theoretical models of "pure" capitalism do not account for a large number of anomalies that are seen in practice, which IMO need to be resolved to make capitalism fit for purpose. Some of these include:
- Oil companies that earn tens of billions in profit continue to get subsidies worth billions, because of lobbying in Congress. Small businesses get the shaft.
- Defense contractors influence lawmakers to keep expanding the military-industrial complex
- For-profit prisons, police/prison guard unions, pharma and alcohol firms lobby to keep marijuana illegal
- Unlimited donations which ensure that fundraising is more important than policy for lawmakers, and policy is shaped by the highest bidder
- A significant portion of the media is consoildated into a handful of conglomerates that drive the narrative around most issues; the aim is to keep the population divided while masking the similar objectives of both major political parties
- Companies flout basic norms of employee welfare and safety in dictatorships like China, which leads to job losses and low pay in developed countries where the rules are actually enforced.
None of these anomalies is an intended consequence of capitalism, but it is a by-product nevertheless. Each of them contribute to economic and social division and inequality.
anti-trust prosecutions are highly political. Clinton went after MS, then dubya's judge let them off. We aren't EVER expecting any anti-trust from any Repug DoJ.
anti-trust broke up ATT, but it has coalesced into a single company again, and now is the dominant partner in the US telecom cartel that delivers ty service for exorbitant prices compared to other industrial countries that are "socialistic".
Unregulated capitalism and finance are ALWAYS screw jobs for the 99%.
What's Obama's blue team DOJ been up to?
We don't have unregulated capitalism.
also, large corporation create "small businesses" to capture govt contracts intended exclusively for small, independent businesses. Just another laugh at the Repugs when they say estate taxes hurt small businesses, while Repugs do nothing about F500 divertng small business contracts.
"None of these anomalies is an intended consequence of capitalism"
the ONLY "intended" consequence of capitalism is to make a profit. All other consequences, good and bad, are secondary.
I've got a simple, solution for all of these issues: remove all money from politics.
If that's the case, then it in a way, becomes a voluntary tax. The product prices would climb as the tax liability increases. At some point, a balance would be achieved.
I'm glad someone understands it. I would never want to do away with capitalism, but it is growing into something very bad. Worse yet, it gives the Socialists, Communist, Marxists, etc. reason to change our system and try to destroy capitalism.
Pure capitalists will tell you that this isn't a pure capitalist model, and on a pure capitalist model, there would be no economic government intervention, which means the problems you listed wouldn't exist (ie: subsidies, tax breaks, etc).
Because companies wouldn't stand to gain any kind of market distortion from politics that would give them a compe ive advantage, it would be less enticing to 'grease those hands'...
What these models fail to account for is that the system is run by greedy, power hungry humans...
Still not a fan of the idea. Why should consumers be punished through higher prices just because they happen to preferring a product that more than 20% of their fellow consumers also prefer?
"the system is run by greedy, power hungry humans.."
so HEAVY govt intervention is necessary to prevent monopolies, cartels, and to protect human health water, air, land.
Good thing governments are never run by greedy, power hungry humans...........
... who are, in USA, financed by the corporations, 1%, etc so any "serious" candidates are primary-ed to exclusion. The political system is a closed class, operating on money, to extract taxpayer wealth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
