The Myth Of American Capitalism Exposed: Competition Is Dying As Corporations Gobble Up Everything

Vibrant competition is absolutely essential in order for a capitalist economic system to function effectively. Unfortunately, in the United States today we are witnessing the death of competition in industry after industry as the biggest corporations increasingly gobble up all of their competitors.

John D. Rockefeller famously once said that “competition is a sin”, and he was one of America’s very first oligopolists. According to Google, an oligopoly is “a state of limited competition, in which a market is shared by a small number of producers or sellers”, and that is a perfect description of the current state of affairs in many major industries. In early America, corporations were greatly limited in scope, and in most instances they were only supposed to exist temporarily. But today the largest corporations have become so huge that they literally dominate our entire society, and that is not good for any of us.

Just look at what is happening in the airline industry. When I was growing up, there were literally dozens of airlines, but now four major corporations control everything and they have been making gigantic profits…

AMERICA’S airlines used to be famous for two things: terrible service and worse finances. Today flyers still endure hidden fees, late flights, bruised knees, clapped-out fittings and sub-par food. Yet airlines now make juicy profits. Scheduled passenger airlines reported an after-tax net profit of $15.5bn in 2017, up from $14bn in 2016.

What is true of the airline industry is increasingly true of America’s economy. Profits have risen in most rich countries over the past ten years but the increase has been biggest for American firms. Coupled with an increasing concentration of ownership, this means the fruits of economic growth are being monopolised.

If you don’t like how an airline is treating you, in some cases you can choose to fly with someone else next time.

But as a recent Bloomberg article pointed out, that is becoming increasingly difficult to do…

United, for example, dominates many of the country’s largest airports. In Houston, United has around a 60 percent market share, in Newark 51 percent, in Washington Dulles 43 percent, in San Francisco 38 percent and in Chicago 31 percent. This situation is even more skewed for other airlines. For example, Delta has an 80 percent market share in Atlanta. For many routes, you simply have no choice.

And of course the airline industry is far from alone. In sector after sector, economic power is becoming concentrated in just a few hands.

For a moment, I would like you to consider these numbers…

Two corporations control 90 percent of the beer Americans drink.

Five banks control about half of the nation’s banking assets.

Many states have health insurance markets where the top two insurers have an 80 percent to 90 percent market share. For example, in Alabama one company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, has an 84 percent market share and in Hawaii it has 65 percent market share.

When it comes to high-speed Internet access, almost all markets are local monopolies; over 75 percent of households have no choice with only one provider.

Four players control the entire U.S. beef market and have carved up the country.

After two mergers this year, three companies will control 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the U.S. corn-seed market.

I knew that things were bad, but I didn’t know that they were that bad.

Capitalism works best when competition is maximized. In socialist systems, the government itself becomes a major player in the game, and that is never a desirable outcome. Instead, what we want is for the government to serve as a “referee” that enforces rules that encourage free and fair competition. Jonathan Tepper, the author of “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition”, made this point very well in an excerpt from his new book…

Capitalism is a game where competitors play by rules on which everyone agrees. The government is the referee, and just as you need a referee and a set of agreed rules for a good basketball game, you need rules to promote competition in the economy.

Left to their own devices, firms will use any available means to crush their rivals. Today, the state, as referee, has not enforced rules that would increase competition, and through regulatory capture has created rules that limit competition.

Our founders were very suspicious of large concentrations of power. That is why they wanted a very limited federal government, and that is also why they put substantial restrictions on corporate entities.

When power is greatly concentrated, most of the rewards tend to flow to the very top of the pyramid, and that is precisely what we have been witnessing. The following comes from the New York Times…

Even when economic growth has been decent, as it is now, most of the bounty has flowed to the top. Median weekly earnings have grown a miserly 0.1 percent a year since 1979. The typical American family today has a lower net worththan the typical family did 20 years ago. Life expectancy, shockingly, has fallen this decade.

So what is the solution?

Well, one of the big things that we need to do is to stop crushing small business.

In America today, the rate of small business creation has been hovering near all-time lows and the percentage of Americans that are working for themselves has been hovering near all-time lows.

In order for more competition to exist, we need more competitors to enter the marketplace, but instead we have been crushing “the little guy” with mountains of regulations and deeply oppressive taxes.

And you know what? Many of the big corporations actually like all of the red tape because they know that they can handle it much easier than their much smaller competitors can. That gives them a competitive advantage, and it creates a barrier to entry that is difficult to overcome.

When I was in school, I was taught that one of the reasons why the U.S. system was so much better than communist systems was because we had so many more choices.

But today our choices are very limited in industry after industry, and the gigantic corporate entities that dominate everything don’t really care if we like it or not.

We can do so much better than this, but in order to do so we must return to the values and principles that this nation was originally founded upon.

That's a good thing. It is a system that could be easily transformed into national socialism, after we kill the Jews.

This could have been prevented if there were laws against patent and copyright ownership for anyone who controls more than .1% of any market.

I said it once, i say it again…Capitalism needs a roof to prevent greed from harming us. A roof that limits how much money a single individual can hold at a time, which is tide to the wealth of the city he conducts business in. Anything he makes over the limit goes directly into the cities wealth to create a fixed bottom for humanity as well. This way bottom and roof will forever be connected, the rich can only get richer if they raise the bottom with them, the middle class will never loose sight of the top, and the poor will never be in danger of falling through the cracks.

The only ones who would complain about such a system are the current elites and their criminal empire of jewish usury.

Look at the American technology sector. The sole motivation for VC investments in tech is gigantic ROI in an "EXIT" event. In this event the company is purchased by an existing corporate behemoth or a private equity firm. This is literally the main goal of tech founders in silicon valley. Create value and get Jewish IOUs in return so they can take over cities and price out undesirables.

Such a system you propose could never exist because those with money will give money to those holding the guns to look the other way. That's why we have such a cluster fuck today. If you make sufficient money, you pay off the right people, bubble to the top, make sure everyone is paid off all the time. It's a delicate balance.

That is why the fuhrer will have all control over who is granted property. That is the best way. All within the domain is rightful property of the nation, and the Fuhrer/King, as the sovereign steward of the nation has absolute authority over granting property rights. Problem solved.

Attached: kike.mp4 (720x480, 568.37K)

ahhahahah
ahahahahah
retarded kids
Getting rid of the law of incorporation will solve everything.

Easy way to fix that as well…state controlled, OPENLY/TRANSPARENTLY handled on public level, yet anonymous on private accounts that are under the individual limit. This way the elite will stand on a plateau and the money they spend can only help others to reach it, which means they will have to work hard for the collective if they want more riches for themselves.

state controlled BANKING

Considering the government gave these tech monopolies their power, it's more of an unholy alliance than anything else.

Are you telling me that when you artificially raise the barrier to entr on a market, that that market will see less competition? Who could have possibly seen this coming.

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpeg (474x631, 49.71K)

It's totally a surprise, dude. Really. Just like how libertarians will always keep the door open for this bullshit.

...

no system survives psychopathy, and the world is full of psychopaths

get rid of psychopaths (namely jews) and damn near any system will work

Capitalism, Socialism and Industrialism is the big homo my dudes.

Attached: ted-kaczynski2a.png (354x237, 77.85K)

No system works when run by sociopaths. All your ism's belong to us.

Attached: Aybabtu.png (240x160, 9.41K)

...

Fuck off reddit.

Fuckuoff lolbertarian

Capitalism is the use of nearly unlimited Feed bucks to buy or bankrupt your competition. Rockafeller didn't build a abetter mousetrap he bought or dumped at a loss until his competition folded.

Market based economics is ideal, but once things go full monopoly a reset is needed. Otherwise you get fuedalism

Attached: der_ewige_boomer.png (680x357, 427.35K)

Layoff the boomers, they went mad with prosperity/Armageddon paradox. X and Z are mad because they have no enemies so they feel the need to conjure up Nazis as the enemy.

What Capitalism is, is the voluntary exchange of property and services. Rockefeller's particular monopoly was all in all a net benefit to Americans. Mathematically speaking, yes there are inefficiencies to monopolies, but in this case it was an already inefficient field being streamlined. More Americans had access to oil, letting rural Americans work beyond the hours of daylight, read more, and by reducing the amount of kerosene being consumed, it stopped the unsustainable practices of whaling before it destroyed itself and marine life with it.
The bottom line is that if people were voluntarily selling things to Rockefeller, what makes it morally wrong for him to buy them? If it has a negative impact on other people, greater than positive impact it creates, then people would easily and willingly not allow it. Saying it's bad because a handful of people gave up control of their businesses is like saying everyone should smoke to keep cigar factories in business, even though the healthcare costs outweigh the economic benefits of those factories. Morality doesn't care if a cost is seen or unseen.

If you think natsocs are the enemy, you need to exit this website right now.

You aren't smart enough to tie your shoes

Never confuse free market with capitalism. And the model of consumer choice is only half the economy Without competition you have little innovative n and worse. You don't have a distributed power class. Why do you think a few zios run our govt? Cause there is no upperiddle and wide spectrum rich that cam fund am opposition. One group owns the media. years ago if you published filth, businessman pulled their ads.

Neoliberalism is a failed economic ideology. What else is new?

Kill Jewgle and I bet many problems with"capitalism" will shrivel up and die.

This article is literally just an advert for some closet commies book.

Why do classical liberals have the same coping mechanisms as commies, user?

"Capitalism" is being destroyed by capitalists, so much for your faggot kike theories.

Nonsense. Anybody willing to work hard can go start his/her own airline or social media company. Lazy snowflakes!!

The competition doesn’t look so bad, if you’re a gambling nigger.

Attached: 81059645-42CB-40F0-AD4D-1D14D3F7EF8C.jpeg (2024x1501, 716.96K)

Copyrights were designed so they would naturally die. Now corporations pass copyrights around so they live forever.

The 'stable bottom of humanity' will identify his tithes as weakness, beat him to death in the streets, and then go on starving.
Meanwhile the ultra rich will manage to dodge this.
Everyone here needs to understand this: it doesn't fucking matter how smart you are, you aren't playing a grand strategy game where you do not have to risk anything real, there is no legislative solution to our problems.

Hahaha, what's it like being a fucking moron?

It's 100% natural for competition to consolidate over time. It's remedial economics.

In two years you think there's going to be 0 competition and only monopolies? That's a stupid idea. You're always going to get large firms, but it's going to be hard for them to become monopolies without government subsidies, regulation barriers, and market distortions that are created by loose monetary policy and government bailouts. The monopolies that can survive without those policies are generally going to survive because they are efficient, i.e. they reduce prices.

There's ID's on this board. Maybe use them? I suspect he was being hyperbolic, but the sentiment is true.

Nonsense. Companies need no government incentive to gravitate towards monopoly status, nor do they require the government to maintain the status they have.

Again, nonsense. You're evidently not familiar economics, economic history, or pretty boilerplate business practices. All competition–to varying degrees–is inherently monopolistically competitive (look it up) and consumers choose only between available alternatives. It's always in any company's best interest to reduce available alternatives to their products (or control them) so they can obtain ever greater pricing power (look it up). A true monopoly has a maximum degree of potential pricing power and can leverage the additional revenues to acquire (or undermine) any competition they face, thus securing the monopoly. Furthermore, large businesses posses much greater economies of scale (look it up) than their smaller counterparts, thereby securing an inherent pricing advantage over their them.

There's even more facets that prove my point, by I think you probably get it by now.

Whats stopping a giant company like Disney from just dividing its self up into 1,000 smaller companies (giving each section to a fellow merchant) that all work together like they were 1?

Like the American franchise racket? Convince a bunch of burgers to buy a job?