From the Economist: Dismembering big tech - excerpt: I like my title of this part better than that of the Economist. Whyzzat? Because the Economist has chosen only one segment of the economy - yes, the biggest ones, but still the phenomenon of Big-Everything has been the main thrust of the economy - under various presidencies - since the middle of the last century. Bigger is supposedly better. (But, what if it isn't really?) And what does BIG-BUSINESS mean? Quite simply, it is the demise of competition and the agglomeration of markets into not just one, but a restricted number. Above all it means one helluva-lotta fortunes being made. Anything wrong with that - after all isn't that the American Dream? Only for a select few! At the rate market-contraction has undergone, it has become America's Pricing Nightmare because that is bound to happen when markets contract competition. The purpose of ALL BIGNESS in business is juicy profits that enrich only a select section of the population. And, given America's silly laws that allow almost unlimited funding to go to electing politicians that do nothing to enhance competition, then that mix becomes downright madness. But where do those "juicy profits" come from? Literally, Reduced competition brought about by market agglomeration to minimize competition to only three-to-four companies* - that was supposedly outlawed by laws passed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries!. (AKA, antitrust laws.) Meaning ipso-facto higher prices for consumers. And those who feel the pinch most are those at the bottom who forego the higher-prices and seek the lowest. With their fixed-rate lower-salaries - and IF they are employed - they cannot afford to have even a decent lower-class existence. Which, if anything, makes the unemployed do what? Sell crack in order to "keep up with the Joneses". Must your children die from drugs for that ugly-message to get through? Because it is what is happening today, not tomorrow. And, it's a recipe for wholesale Income Disparity that will spark another Watts Riots sooner or later. And when that happens, don't say, "Oh WOW! WHAT A SURPRISE!!!" The history of mankind has always repeated itself. By then, however, It's far too late ... *I'm barking up the Wrong Tree, am I? Building commercial aircraft is now the privilege of only one company in the US. Boeing!
It's important to pursue this matter, which sports the name Oligopoly (and comes from any book on EC101). So, what does that word actually mean (from here)?: It's consequence are grave, as professed here: It is the responsibility of the Attorney General of the US to undertake systematic studies of various market-sectors to assure they remain competitive. But, of course, if a PotUS did not want such to happen, it wouldn't. Which is what has occurred systematically over the past 30/40 years. Whyzzat? Because financial support by the rich have prevented anyone who seeks to be president from garnishing his campaign by means of BigDonations. Does that matter? Well, it shouldn't. But because of the artificial manipulation of the Electoral College (which goes back TWO CENTURIES to its installment in 1812 by Congress) by means of the WINNER TAKES ALL RULE! What does that mean, winner-takes-all? It means that if you do not vote for the winner of the Popular-Vote, then all your votes are rubbished. And the numeric vote of the state's Electoral College goes to whichever winner. Yes! Your vote for any minority-vote candidate simply does not count in the national-vote consolidation by Congress that states the winner of the election ... ! PS: Now you-tell-me why the above warping of the popular-vote is both fair and impartial and therefore justifiable. That is, the US democracy is honestly fair-and-equitable despite both Gerrymandering and the Electoral College.
From here (Forbes): It's Time To Abolish The Electoral College - excerpt When, ever, are we as a nation going to wake up to the fact that for more than two-centuries the democratic popular-vote to political office has been manipulated by both Gerrymandering (at the state level) and the Electoral College (at the national level). Huh, when ... ? *And I cannot imagine any judge in the country who would invalidate a vote of any citizen who legally voted.
