Democrats need to become anti-monopolists again
By Justin Stofferahn
Inflation has skyrocketed, real wages are declining for many people, and baby formula is nowhere to be found. With polling consistently finding rising prices as the top concern of voters, these interlocking economic crises are likely to have a major impact on Novembers elections, with a bleak outlook for Democrats currently.
It would seem obvious then that party leaders would attack the root cause of price hikes and our fragile supply chains the corporate monopolies that are increasingly dominating American life. Unfortunately, the antimonopoly spirit that once animated Minnesota populists is still struggling to re-emerge.
The Minnesota DFL recently held its state convention in Rochester, and amidst the candidate endorsements and speeches, party leaders had the opportunity to make changes to the DFLs ongoing platform and approve its 2022 Action Agenda. While these documents are mostly symbolic, they serve as an important gauge for what thought leaders and party activists are considering and have passion and energy for, with battles over pipelines and mining serving as a couple of examples.
Yet despite finding ourselves in a Second Gilded Age with rampant corporate concentration and record mergers neither the Action Agenda nor the party platform make any mention of monopoly power. This is particularly striking given Sen. Amy Klobuchars leading role in shaping antitrust reforms in Congress that would help reign in Big Tech.
Read more: https://www.penncapital-star.com/commentary/democrats-need-to-become-antimonopolists-again-opinion/
JoeOtterbein
(7,702 posts)And ASAP please!
TigressDem
(5,125 posts)tirebiter
(2,539 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 13, 2022, 03:07 AM - Edit history (1)
There are a lot reasons to have P. G.&E. But they have to face up to responsibilities in trade for being a monopoly beyond their stock holders fiduciary interests.
Frasier Balzov
(2,674 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 8, 2022, 03:24 AM - Edit history (2)
According to my way of thinking, their packages violate the Clayton Act.
modrepub
(3,504 posts)The bigger you are, the harder you fall. If you have just a few producers either you're going to have to deal with non-competitive pricing or shortages (and even higher prices) when something inevitably goes wrong.
What also hasn't worked is "just in time" delivery. Having inventory to tide you over in a shortage went out the window decades ago. This system works fine when the trade networks are not hit with pandemics. It also doesn't help that most of the manufacturing went to one area of the world (China) where the pandemic first started.
Bottom line, decentralized smaller units are more robust than centralized big units. Yes there is some waste on the smaller scale since there are economies of scale for larger units. But having all your eggs in one or a couple of baskets sets you up for massive problems once a system is stressed.