Corporate Monopolies Considered Harmful

First, a history lesson. You should probably read Dr. Stiglitz’s article in The Nation first.

Some century and a quarter ago, America was, in some ways, at a similar juncture: Political and economic power seemed concentrated in a few hands, in ways that were inconsonant with our democratic ideals. We passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890, followed in the next quarter-century by other legislation trying to ensure competition in the market place. Importantly, these laws were based on the belief that concentrations of economic power inevitably would lead to concentrations in political power. Antitrust policy was not based on a finely honed economic analysis, resting on concurrent advances in economics. It was really about the nature of our society and democracy. But somehow, in the ensuing decades, antitrust was taken over by an army of economists and lawyers. They redefined and narrowed the scope, to focus on consumer harm, with strong presumptions that the market was in fact naturally competitive, placing the burden of proof on those who contended otherwise. On this basis, it became almost impossible to successfully bring a predatory pricing case: Any attempt to raise prices above costs would instantaneously be met by an onslaught of new firm entry (so it was claimed). Chicago economists would argue—with little backing in either theory or evidence—that one shouldn’t even worry about monopoly: In an innovative economy, monopoly power would only be temporary, and the ensuing contest to become the monopolist maximized innovation and consumer welfare.

Did everybody get that? No? Here’s the deal.

  1. All of this shit has happened before, in the 1890s.
  2. We dealt with it by breaking up businesses that got too big.
  3. We didn’t break them up because it was “good for the economy” or to promote “consumer welfare”, but because it was good for the republic and its citizens.
  4. Economists from the Chicago school have conned our leaders into thinking vigorous antitrust enforcement is unnecessary because in a free market monopolies are only temporary.
  5. The problem is that free markets only exist in the imaginations of neoliberals and Ayn Rand fans.

So, what do we do about corporations that have become too large and too powerful? We do the same thing we did over a century ago. We break them up. Or, because it’s the 21st century and we got Twitter instead of life in space: #BreakThemUp.

Break up Alphabet (Google’s parent company).

Break up Microsoft.

Break up Amazon.

Break up Apple.

Break up Disney.

Break up Facebook.

Break up Comcast.

Break up Verizon.

Break up Con-Agra.

Break up Exxon-Mobil.

Break up AT&T again, because those assclowns didn’t learn their lesson last time.

Break up every multinational corporation on Earth, or at least bar them from operating on American soil.

No corporation should be permitted to operate in more than one state of the Union, in more than one industry, or exist for more than 10 years. No corporation should be permitted to exist unless it provides a specific public benefit that government is not legally authorized by its constitution or charter to provide.

No corporation should be construed as having rights, and no corporation should be able to buy other corporations.

It should be possible to dissolve a corporation and shut it down at the first evidence of malfeasance on the corporation’s part.

A corporation’s employees should have as great a say in the corporation’s governance as its stockholders.

No, this isn’t communism. Communism would involve nationalizing the corporations and putting the stockholders in a fucking gulag. This isn’t “hipster antitrust”, either. This is how we used to do shit in the United States, back when

More of this bullshit later…

White Identity Considered Harmful

While I’m glad that I’m glad that no humans were harmed during Spencer’s appearance at the University of Florida, Richard Spencer is just a symptom of the real disease.

Whiteness is the real problem. Let me make something crystal fucking clear: if you’re of European ancestry and you think being white is the core of your identity, then you probably don’t actually have an identity or anything resembling a life. If that’s the case, you should try getting one of each, preferably a life and identity that doesn’t involve being Nazi filth.

If notions like “white solidarity” and “white pride” are anything to you but contemptible, then you yourself are beneath my contempt. How dare you take pride or seek solidarity in a quality that you did nothing to earn? You’re no better than a gambler who acts like he’s king of the world because he had a good night at the blackjack table.

Being born white is like being dealt aces at a poker game with two aces on the damn table. You’ve already got a damn good hand just by showing up, and you did fuck-all to earn it.

But it’s always the assholes who never bothered to play their hands to advantage who make such an inordinately big deal about having been dealt aces. You know what getting dealt a pair of aces will get you when the other player builds a better hand from their own hole cards and whatever’s on the table? Jack shit, which is all most white supremacists have to offer–and they damned well know it.

That’s right. Most white supremacists, or white nationalists, or whatever the hell you want to call them, know they’re worthless. They know God wasted perfectly good skin on them. They know the world’s better off without them because they’ve made nothing of their lives.

Does saying this make me a “self-hating white person”? Only to people who take notions like “white genocide” seriously. I don’t even think of myself as white. “White” is a false identity created to con poor colonists of European ancestry into a false sense of solidarity with rich white slaveowners. It’s based on the notion that even poor white trash are “better than” black people.

What am I, if not “white”? What is the core of my identity? My identity is mine to decide for myself. The core of my identity is whatever I damned well say it is, and any Nazi who thinks otherwise can go straight to Hel with the rest of the cowards and weaklings.

This is where I could talk big about punching Nazis, and it’s certainly fair to say that Nazis like Richard Spencer deserve to get punched. They know it. They’re psyched up for it. They want to get punched. That’s why they’re out on the streets instead of talking shit on Stormfront and 4chan while jerking off.

Why do they want to get punched? Because it makes martyrs of them as surely as if I showed up at one of their rallies with an AK and started shooting. These dumb fucks must think they’ll go to Valhalla if they get to die fighting for their race or something, so why let them have that illusory glory?

Let them die of old age in their beds. Let their deaths go unnoticed except by those who must bury them. Let them die the straw death. Indeed, let Hel’s embrace be their fate.

Don’t mourn their passing. Don’t give them funerals. Just put them in a landfill with the rest of the garbage once their time on earth has run its natural course, and let their very names be forgotten.

And if you can’t afford such patience, why not laugh at them instead like antifascists do in Europe? Fanatics can’t stand mockery. They can’t handle being laughed at. They can’t handle seeing their ideals ridiculed. They’re like Jehovah’s Witnesses in that respect.

More about this bullshit later…