It's not capitalism. Capitalism does not by itself guarantee competition. (Image from Clint Sprott at the University of Wisconsin. Go Badgers.)
That is does is the biggest lie told by political conservatives.
Capitalism, in fact, evolves toward monopoly, or to its cousins duopoly and oligopoly, just as ecosystems evolve toward a "climax" state that can only be re-set by catastrophe.
The only mechanism we have to protect competition against this natural tendency is government.
Only a government strong enough to stand up against the biggest enterprises can guarantee competition.
This is difficult to assure.
It's difficult to assure because money corrupts, and corporations -- not government -- are the source of money. It's your money, and unfortunately corporations are considered as people under U.S. law -- immortal people who can't be jailed.
It's also difficult because companies are lazy, just as people are lazy. (Just as these bears are lazy, from an English firm offering tours of the Canadian tundra.)
Drug companies want faster approvals, less government, and then when bad drugs get into people as a result they wind up losing far more than a bureaucracy would cost. Financial companies and industrial companies, too, wish always to reduce the level of competition, to assure leaders their sinecures and, on down the line, to guarantee workers their pensions.
Thus even in a strong democracy, corruption can easily occur. Organized labor and organized capital can end up on the same side, so "what's good for General Motors is good for the USA." Or big capital can crush government and labor both, as has happened in our time.
When this happens, the only cure is competition. This time, it's competition from other countries, and other systems.
The cure for Bushism lies in India, in China, in Japan, in Europe. The test is whether the system of business-controlled government delivers more growth than other systems. There is no such thing as absolute power, no matter how absolutist a local government may appear to be.
Competition is reduced here, it thrives there, so their economies rise relative to ours, while ours falls -- even if it is growing in absolute terms it's falling relative to others.
This will continue until Americans are either impoverished and economically crushed or until we get the message and take matters into your own political hands, creating real business competition across the board.
This is not a matter of personal belief. It is as things are. And it takes neither genius nor anger to predict the end of it. All you need do is look at history, find the patterns, catch the Clues.
The only way to get better is through having an opponent.
1. Emeka on February 1, 2005 12:33 PM writes...
You forgot to mention Africa take a look at www.timbuktuchronicles.blogspot.com to get a sense of what is happening below the radar
Permalink to Comment2. Brad Hutchings on February 1, 2005 01:54 PM writes...
Who says we are interested in competition? We're interested in growth, as that is what makes our lives generally better and easier. You are correct in saying that Capitalism does not guarantee competition. But regardless of the sizes of firms and competitive landscape, unregulated economies have a Historical (with a big H) track record of promoting growth. And it's a small-l libertarian position, not a politically conservative one. Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs are easily as economically illiterate as the people who convinced you that competition was the highest goal. I honestly hope you just miswrote that first paragraph!!
The big problem with government as referee is that government doesn't have the intentions nor the information to do the job within any factor of optimality that the cruel, free market can. You decry lack of competition in local phone service. Yet, if one takes of the archaic POTS blinders and thinks in terms of communicatioins, there is indeed lots of competition! Cable, wireless, satellite, ... You decry the downfall of a great company, AT&T, when it was propped up as a monopoly by the same strong government you advocate, free from competition, for over 60 years!! Compare long distance phone rates in 1980 in 1980 dollars to rates today in today's dollars to see what benefites all the nasty deregulation -- with some breaking apart of old giants and some consolidation of new upstarts (the process is called "dynamism"). Compare those and you will see that a free, dynamic economy kicks butt over a politely refereed one any day. It gives us growth by cutting costs. Sometimes competition is the mechanism and sometimes, consolodation is the driving force.
Anyway, growth is your goal. We have college and professional sports for those who need a regular dose of competition.
Permalink to Comment3. Jesse Kopelman on February 1, 2005 04:40 PM writes...
I think ideally no regulation (not no laws, mind you) at all is the best course. With no government protection, over-large companies will eventually be devoured by nimbler competition (see airlines). Unfortunately, with our many-leveled system of government, I don't see how one can keep all the fingers out of the pie. This is really more of a general problem of government structure and means of funding than anything else.
Permalink to Comment