Kira Leigh
Aug 9, 2017 · 4 min read

So we’re clear, I agree with you that the power to break up monopolies is not being used properly, I feel it is corrupted. Look no further than AT&T, which was broken up decades ago, but has hilariously been allowed to merge back together, and potentially grow even larger with a Time Warner merger.

Yes, I am very much talking about those types of mergers…glad we agree on this.

I make the general statement that Capitalism is the greatest thing since sliced bread, because it is a system that allows for human nature while “checking” it. A human is allowed to put positive and helpful virtues, such as intelligence, competitiveness, and work ethic to use. But if they let negative virtues take over too much, such as greed and laziness (as everyone becomes corrupt to a certain extent), then they will likely lose their power through free market competition.

But we do not currently ‘check it’ in America. I am sadly assuming you are American. Are you?

So I agree with you, THE KEY is to maintain a truly free market. Large “corporations” (which you once again bring up in your first sentence), are NOT free market. The solution is 1) Break up the largest corporations 2) Encourage new business and small business growth 3) Encourage competition between medium sized businesses and large, broken-up corporations

That is 100% what I would advocate for.

The one major problem I will point out with breaking up large corporations, is that we could risk making our large, multinational corporations unable to compete on a global scale. I propose that we allow large corporations to act as monopolies overseas (where non-American companies are also allowed to act as monopolies), while taking action to stop monopolistic practices within our borders.

Apple can definitely compete on a global scale without shell-gaming up in Ireland’s rear butt-cheek. I don’t think this applies to really most, if any, of the major corporations that soul-suck America. They want to thrive and survive, they’ll find a way. Monopolies, period, are garbage.

Do we agree that the bottom 50% has a much, much higher standard of living than they did a century ago? I agree that they don’t get the perks that the upper class does, but at least they don’t (or shouldn’t) have to worry about where their next meal and housing comes from. We have solid safety nets for the essentials of life.

I agree with this statement insofar as to compare century to century, however, that is not what I am doing. No ill intent meant, none of my reply to you has meant to be salty in any way, shape, or form. So I apologize if I come across that way — my caffeine is leaving me so I’m a bit dry and less witty than I’d like to be.

So, here’s the thing, man. I am comparing the current oligarchy to the current…everyone not the oligarchy. Not century-wise. Different times, different standards, different necessities. You need a smart phone now to apply to jobs, live, navigate, etc. This is somehow still considered a luxury because a century ago, of course, we didn’t have smart phones.

But life requires you to have one, at the minimum, and best to have a laptop or a desktop computer. Plus car, to pay for gas…you cannot compare centuries.

And no, a lot of people still do have to worry about where their next meal and housing comes from. Plus we also have the issue of the stigma of ‘welfare queens’ and people gaming the system. It is extremely difficult to exit the cycle of poverty. It is extremely, extremely, extremely difficult. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be on welfare your entire life.

And I’d consider health care, mental health care, reproductive rights, and so on, and so forth, as essentials that need solid safety nets. But that doesn’t mean people aren’t trying to tear them down and away.

They are. Doggedly.

So another way to phrase “sponge-up” is “Demand Side Economic Theory”, and “trickle-down economics” is “Supply Side Economic Theory”. I think that “Supply Side Economic Theory” works better where “increased supply creates increased demand”, AKA where the demand is “elastic”. And Supply-Side works better when you want to see improved product innovation and new tech. “Demand Side Economic Theory” works better where demand is “inelastic”, and where you want to see improved supply chains, manufacturing innovation, and distribution. I see a need for a mix of Demand-side and Supply-side economics.

I see a demand for actual job growth instead of padding the pockets of CEOs to 300x the amount of their bottom-line workers and mass-firings to maintain company stock as that is somehow now the current barometer of a healthy company.

For insight into why I think the past sentence is bananas, see above link.

I see a need for investment in green, clean energy. I see a need for investment in education and breaking apart the for-profit education sector. I see a need for a lot of things.

America at its best is dodgey capitalism. At its worst its an oligarchy.

I may seem dire, and may seem reactionary or provocative, or whatever word you’d want to describe my theories about all this.

But its a time for change, now. And soaking up wealth into the pockets of people who want to buy more palaces isn’t going to help the homeless population one iota of an inch of a margin of a centimeter.

    Kira Leigh

    Written by

    Content Marketer / Artist / Writer / Gamer - www.thereisno.design