From 37 to 4 in 20 years

[KansDem]

From Mother Jones

I thought one of the main tenets of capitalism was that it created competition and that gave us higher quality and lower costs. Was I mistaken? :shrug:

[Poll_Blind]

1. Man that's one hell of an infographic.

+1

PB

[Liberal_in_LA]

26. +100

[AsahinaKimi]

39. Very telling

I would be interested in seeing how other Corporations have gobbled up smaller companies.

[Poll_Blind]

44. Yes, indeed. This "free market" consolidation is ANTHING but good for business

PB

[chervilant]

127. No duh!

AND, the sooner we can help the hoi polloi understand that 'small business' is a juicy red herring promulgated by the Corporate Megalomaniacs bent on securing their global hegemony, the sooner we can witness the inevitable revolution that will stop them.

[wickerwoman]

59. Exactly. A similar graphic for media corporations would pretty much tell the whole story

of what's going wrong in the US today.

[Jim_Shorts]

89. We have a monopoly in almost every industry

From toothpaste to oil, they have all bought or crushed the competition and it is one of the reasons we are not creating new jobs.

Someone wrote a book about this, I think it's called Cornered

[ProfessorGAC]

109. I'm Pretty Certain, No Other Industry Is This Consolidated

At least not in that short a period. Sure, GM was a consolidation of a bunch of american car companies, but that took a while and there was still Ford and Chrysler.

Oil companies have been highly consolidated but that took 80 years.

This is a massive restructuring of the marketplace in a very short amount of time.

Kind of shocking. Whatever happened to the trustbusters?
GAC

[Posteritatis]

45. Isn't it though? Goddamn. (nt)

[Rex]

2. Yep, predatory capitalism tore us a new asshole!

Now we have four! This is what happens when you cut regulations and decide to let uber-corps do whatever they want. You lose and so does the nation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Smith would agree with you

This is monopolist capitalism and is what Smith railed against in the Wealth of Nations.

[tclambert]

63. Exactly right.

Business people don't want you to know that. They will praise all the virtues of a competitive marketplace, then call it a "free" market, and pretend that an unregulated monopolistic market is the same thing. As Adam Smith said over 230 years ago, every businessperson naturally wants to build a monopoly. They really, in their hearts of hearts (or the small nut-like thing where their hearts ought to be), HATE competition. Hate it, hate it, hate it. And that is why Smith said they should never, ever, ever be allowed to run a country.

[chervilant]

129. And,

this is the 'capitalism' Marx predicted would eventually 'fall' to true communism. Look at how much energy the corporatists have expended vilifying 'communism'...

[sfpcjock]

4. ...but they're much better now. k&r

:sarcasm:

[Odin2005]

5. Soon they will all consolidate into one Mega-Corp and they will own us completely.

This is the end stage of Capitalism, when all corporations fuse together and then absorb the real government.

[KansDem]

17. Isn't that what Upton Sinclair was predicting?

That there will be no "revolution," but rather corporations will buy into each other until there would be only one that will act as the "government."

[SusanaMontana41]

90. That's how I remember it, too.

Your post makes me want to pick up "The Jungle" again.

[Flatulo]

83. Well, the Feds are stopping AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile, so

someone is doing their job at least...

[Selatius]

101. ATT, in its current form, should probably be broken as a monopoly even without T-Mobile. nt

[Flatulo]

107. We already did that once. They keep reconstituting. Nt

[Selatius]

111. That's capitalism in general. It tends towards monopolism. nt

[jwirr]

117. They will not only own us - they will own the world. And none of us

citizens of the world will be better off for it. What happens if you continue to play Monopoly after one person wins?

[Octafish]

6. Outstanding!

Thank you, KansDem!

[hifiguy]

7. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING

a capitalist hates more than competition. The best way to extract maximum profits/fees/etc from the teeming millions while providing them the shittiest possible service is through the creation of (at best) a monopoly. The next best thing is a coordinated oligopoly with only a handful of players who coordinate all of their activities.

Every president of both parties from Theodore Roosevelt to Jimmy Carter enforced the antitrust laws passed in TR's time. Since then, antitrust enforcement in the US has become as irrelevant as Sanskrit. IT is NOT what TPTB and big bu$iness want. It interferes with the generation of profits and rents.

[Odin2005]

8. Yup. The old "Capitalism = Compitition" meme is propaganda.

There would be far more competition in a socialist economy based on co-ops than in Capitalism.

[Blue_Tires]

35. +1000

been saying the same for years...

[Art_from_Ark]

57. To paraphrase Leona Helmsley:

"Competition is for the little people"

[jwirr]

119. Wonder if the rich owners of those merged corporations will ever

get tired of this? After all they are now out of the game. Will that group ever be ready to fight back against that one corporation/government?

[The2ndWheel]

9. E pluribus unum

It doesn't work just with the things you like.

[thereismore]

38. That fits. nt

[tridim]

10. Note that the WaMu acquisition by Chase cost Chase exactly zero dollars.

It still freaks me out how that went down, and that nobody knows or cares.

[Broderick]

11. highly recommended

If I could recommend this many over and over I would.

This is the real problem in this country. Banks, Wall Street, Insurance companies and multi-national corporations.

[Overseas]

12. I agree. "Free market competition" is a Trojan horse for monopoly capitalism.

"Free market competition" is an easy little sound byte to toss around. Sounds All American. Give everyone a chance. Let those entrepreneurs in there.

The results have been the opposite of the claims. We have paid more for worse service and far fewer options for individual consumers.

Edited to add--

at least in the USA that is what has happened.

It seems like in other countries they have regulations that prioritize giving consumers choices among vendors. Telecommunication costs are much cheaper in other countries, for example.

Other countries don't pretend that just talking about competition will make it happen. They plan for it and make laws intended to benefit individual consumers rather than multinational corporations.

[MilesColtrane]

13. And, soon to be three?

How much longer can Bank of America hold on?

[Arkansas Granny]

14. I thought that this was against our antitrust laws.

[area51]

15. I think Teddy Roosevelt has been spinning in his grave for years. n/t

[stockholmer]

78. this outcome is exactly what so-called 'Progressive Era' reforms put into play

The problem with the US experiment is not big government per se, it is big government that has morphed in all areas over the last 100 years into nothing more than an enforcement mechanism for the systemic controllers. Agencies that should be for the public good are simple the tools of the elite designed to to crush all competition from small and mid-size firms.

This started in the USA during the so-called Progressive Era under Theodore Roosevelt, wherein huge monopolies like Standard Oil, etc, utilized a 'don't throw me in the briar patch' argument to get the force of government into regulating business practices (regulations that many times in the 100 years since they themselves have written, then had a bought and paid for Congress pass). Far from creating a free market, this quashed their rivals in so many cases, and made it exceedingly hard for small entrepreneurs to compete.

The US Animal ID act is a perfect example, wherein a small sized chicken farmer has to pay exorbitant licensing fees per chicken, thus forcing them out of business, whilst monstrously huge consortiums like Tyson, etc, simply are allowed to buy one large bulk license that covers millions of birds.

Check out New Left historian Gabriel Kolko, who in his book "The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916."
In it, he lays out a case for the rise of modern corporatist system during the Progressive Era.

This in turn, allows for the violation of a anti-fascistic principle – No socialization of losses and privatization of gains
(ie the confluence of big business and big government in mutual reinforcement)

http://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Conservatism-Gabriel-Kolko/dp/0029166500

free pdf http://www.4shared.com/document/Psy6aMNF/Gabriel_Kolko_-_The_Triumph_Of.html


Kolko was soon joined by other New Left historians such as William Appleman Williams in challenging the reigning "corporate liberal" orthodoxy. Rather than "the people" being behind these "progressive reforms," it was the very elite business interests themselves responsible, in an attempt to cartelize, centralize and control what was impossible due to the dynamics of a competitive and decentralized economy.

.............in advancing the corporate liberalism idea whereby the old Progressive historiography of the "interests" versus the "people" was reinterpreted as a collaboration of interests aiming towards stabilizing competition . According to Grob and Billias, "Kolko believed that large-scale units turned to government regulation precisely because of their inefficiency" and that the "Progressive movement - far from being antibusiness - was actually a movement that defined the general welfare in terms of the well-being of business" . Kolko, in particular, broke new ground with his critical history of the Progressive Era. He discovered that free enterprise and competition were vibrant and expanding during the first two decades of the twentieth century; meanwhile, corporations reacted to the free market by turning to government to protect their inherent inefficiency from the discipline of market conditions. This behavior is known as corporatism, but Kolko dubbed it "political capitalism." Kolko's thesis "that businessmen favored government regulation because they feared competition and desired to forge a government-business coalition" is one that is echoed by many observers today . Former Harvard professor Paul H. Weaver uncovered the same inefficient and bureaucratic behavior from corporations during his stint at Ford Motor Corporation (see Weaver's The Suicidal Corporation <1988>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Kolko
http://users.crocker.com/~acacia/kolko.html
http://miltenoff.tripod.com/Kolko.html
http://www.stateofnature.org/liberalElitesAnd.html

[hlthe2b]

16. Damn... that is just disgusting, but incredibly revealing....

[RadiationTherapy]

18. "too big to fail" is "too big for capitalism"

[TBF]

19. Excellent graphic. nt

[David Sky]

20. And when each one of those bank mergers happened, SOME BANKER FOLKS got...

filthy rich. While thousands of other ordinary folks lost their banking jobs.

[MadHound]

21. Suggestion,

Take your money and deposit it in either a local credit union, or a local/regional bank. Starve the beast, that's the only thing that's going to work.

[Flatulo]

84. Agreed, I haven't been near a bank in over 30 years. Fuck them.

I use the local credit union. Free checks, no minimum balances, no ATM fees, etc.

[Selatius]

103. Plus, as a depositor, you have a vote on how the credit union is also run. nt

[jwirr]

123. I am interested in something new the government is doing with

Social Security and SSI as well as other government cash programs. Social Security is now doing a debit card, called GoDirect, and comes directly out of government accounts from federal banks. How does this program fit into the banking industry? My money on the debit card comes straight to me through a fed bank in Texas. Is this some new game they are playing?

[hfojvt]

22. so that's what that song is about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSOaoPDO16Y

Nice to get that cleared up.

Funny thing is, that I remember reading Heilbroner writing in the 1970s that the top 4 corporations in every industry controlled about 90% market share.

All of those companies were not equal size to start with, and some of them were in different "industries". Like at the top Travellers was an insurance company while Citicorp was a bank. It was the repeal of Glass-Steagall that allowed a bank to buy an insurance company.

Further, it would seem that Citigroup has not exactly prospered from all their acquisitions. Back in 2007, their stock was selling for $55 a share, and it fell to about $2 a share in 2009 and even today is basically selling for $2.85 a share (they did a reverse stock split 10-1, so the market price is now 28.49, but that's basically for 10 shares in 2007 terms.

Bank of America hit the skids too, dropping from 55 down to 7.

Wells Fargo has about stayed even for the last five years, after a big fall in 2009, and so has JPMorgan.

[bvar22]

23. A Bi-Partisan SUCCESS!!!

DLC Mission Accomplished!!!

[Roland99]

24. I love my credit unions! Navy Federal, State Department, Penn State Employees, Fairwinds

[LuckyLib]

34. Credit Union enthusiast here as well. Nothing like 'em.

[Liberal_in_LA]

25. awesome chart. WaMu came to LA and sucked up all the banks.

[rug]

27. The NCAA Tournament is a poor model for a country's financial sytem.

[KansDem]

32. LOL!!!

It looks like we're now at the "Final Four"

[WCGreen]

28. Great graph...

I think the owners of start up companies now want to hit a point where they can be bought out and walk away with millions.

[progressoid]

29. Rec.

[pnorman]

30. I'll pass that on, including your title. Thanks!

[Claudia Jones]

31. you were mistaken

Capitalism destroys competition, and gives us lower quality and higher costs. Always.

[bbgrunt]

70. so very true.

[Starry Messenger]

74. Yep. Shared profits are lost profits.

Capitalism's direction courses directly to monopoly.

[taught_me_patience]

33. The natural tendency of capitalism is for monopolies to form

that's the primary reason why we need government regulation... to keep the field competitive. People arguing that less regulation will create more competition ARE COMPLETELY IGNORANT OF ECONOMICS.

[laundry_queen]

36. A perfectly competitive market means no profit

and monopolies make the largest profits. econ 101. Every company wants to be a monopoly in order to maximize profits, which is WHY regulation is needed. Also from econ 101.

[thereismore]

37. Citigroup didn't absorb anybody since 2001. Weak! nt

[Dawson Leery]

40. k/r

[leftstreet]

41. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

42. Capitalism in business does foster competition, but capitalism in government works in reverse.

This is why money should never be equated to speech, public financing for elections should be available and any kind of monetary lobbying; aka bribery outlawed, the ideas and arguments; of political leaders should stand on their own merits or fall for the lack of.

Thanks for the thread, KansDem.

[MisterP]

43. Braudel says that capitalism was competitive from the Zeroth Century to 19Neventy7

it's just Smithian nonsense that capitalism needs competition, or that it automatically produces the cheapest, best quality stuff
nothing's AUTOMATIC in economics--that's just some 18th-century relic of applying the idea of "natural law" to economics

[russspeakeasy]

46. That is one kickass graph...Thanks..

:argh:

[bigwillq]

47. My money's in a regional bank.

It's the only bank I use.
Hoping the bank isn't bought out.

[Selatius]

102. It probably will at some point, by one of the big four if the graphic is any indication.

Thought about moving your money into a credit union that depositors control instead of investors?

[benld74]

48. Note the number immediatelyB4 and after the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act in 99

Our fathers and grandfathers KNEW to hold the banksters accountable. THEY learned MUCH following the Depression. HOWEVER, humans HAVE A SHORT memory,,,,

[SmileyRose]

88. Good catch.

[Ignis]

49. K&R, great infographic from MJ.

And to think, MJ has been excoriated here at DU over the past few months for daring to question the wisdom of the Left owing fealty to these banksters.

Dark days....

[abelenkpe]

50. K&R nt

[Paka]

51. Powerful graph there. n/t

[jerseyjack]

52. Same with oil companies, cell phone companies.

[tpsbmam]

53. K&R but a link to the original would be nice eom

[slipslidingaway]

54. knr nt

[DaveJ]

55. Wow, 37 to 4, the sky is falling, no competition

I wonder about the other 9,459 banks. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Total_number_of_banks_in_US)

[bluesbassman]

62. Well some fast calculation says that 1.8% of the banks control 63% of the assets.

The sky may not be falling, but's pretty dark as far as I can tell.

[Warren Stupidity]

97. The other 9500 banks are minor players.

But you knew that, right?

[valerief]

56. In five years, we'll be calling the last one standing The Bank.

In ten years, we'll be calling it Master.

[Hissyspit]

65. +1

Ever seen "Rollerball?" The original one, I mean.

[Art_from_Ark]

58. What a great graphic

This should be circulated widely.

[pam4water]

60. Great graph! K&R

[OwnedByFerrets]

61. WOW, just WOW

[w0nderer]

64. k&r n/t

[defendandprotect]

66. "Capitalism isn't about competition...it's about KILLING the competition" -- !!

Thanks for the info --

Capitalism is a ridiculous "King-of-the-Hill" system intended to move the wealth and

natural resources of nations from the many to the few --

And, I'm betting on J. P. MORGAN as the final winner in the bankster battles!!

[sarcasmo]

67. Scary chart, nationalize the banks now!

[FraDon]

135. On point • n/t

[Whisp]

68. Obama must have done that when he was in college.

or somewhere.

maybe in 9th grade.

anyway, it's his damn fault. all of it.

I guess I need the :sarcasm:

[paulk]

126. I don't see Obama's name in the OP

this constant "victim" thing gets old.

[neverforget]

69. One of those banks holds my mortgage, The customer service was

awful yesterday and today was downright arrogant and condescending. If these assholes need another bailout, I hope they burn. Fucking parasites on the economy.

[bertman]

71. That says it all. Many thanks, KansDem. REC.nt

[LadyInAZ]

72. yes that is the idea...

but americans are accused of being greedy... but i did work hard in college, work my way up the letter, to only been unemployed and stuck behind a recession iron curtain... while others benefit from what i as a citizen is entitled too...

[Prana69]

73. Didn't an economist once say (paraphrasing) "the natural order of capitalism is to move towards...

...monopoly"? Keynes or Galbraith or someone?

There's your proof.

P69

[dkf]

75. Google has acquired over 100 companies all by itself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Google

Here is IBM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_IBM

[go west young man]

76. Media consolidation from Wikipedia.

In the United States, movie production is known to be dominated by major studios since the early 20th Century; before that, there was a period in which Edison's Trust monopolized the industry. The music and television industries recently witnessed cases of media consolidation, with Sony Music Entertainment's parent company merging their music division with Bertelsmann AG's BMG to form Sony BMG and TimeWarner's The WB and CBS Corp.'s UPN merging to form The CW. In the case of Sony BMG, there existed a "Big Five" (now "Big Four") of major record companies, while The CW's creation was an attempt to consolidate ratings and stand up to the "Big Four" of American network (terrestrial) television (this despite the fact that the CW was, in fact, partially owned by one of the Big Four in CBS). In television, the vast majority of broadcast and basic cable networks, over a hundred in all, are controlled by nine corporations: News Corporation (the Fox family of channels), The Walt Disney Company (which includes the ABC, ESPN and Disney brands), CBS Corporation, Viacom, Comcast (which includes the NBC brands), Time Warner, Discovery Communications, E. W. Scripps Company, Cablevision, or some combination thereof (examples including the aforementioned The CW as well as A&E Networks, which is a consortium of Comcast and Disney).
There may also be some large-scale owners in an industry that are not the causes of monopoly or oligopoly. Clear Channel Communications, especially since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, acquired many radio stations across the United States, and came to own more than 1,200 stations. However, the radio broadcasting industry in the United States and elsewhere can be regarded as oligopolistic regardless of the existence of such a player. Because radio stations are local in reach, each licensed a specific part of spectrum by the FCC in a specific local area, any local market is served by a limited number of stations. In most countries, this system of licensing makes many markets local oligopolies. The similar market structure exists for television broadcasting, cable systems and newspaper industries, all of which are characterized by the existence of large-scale owners. Concentration of ownership is often found in these industries.

[caseymoz]

77. Capitalism creates competition:That's the theory

Like water doesn't conduct electricity, in theory.

In fact, in the 19th century there were trusts and amalgamations. The competition never quite works the way it's supposed to. Soon you have unregulated monopolies, or oligapolies.

[harmonicon]

79. You were mistaken.

That's one of the many lies used to sell it to schmucks, but the truth is very far removed from that.

[go west young man]

80. And of course most power companies are state run and monopolies.

And here's how that works in regards to renewable energy. http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/law-gives-floridas-electric-monopolies-control-of-solar-energy/1162150

Capitalism has been failing for the last 2 decades but the bailout of 2008 was the first time the emporer truly had no clothes. What we have now is a public in denial of the obvious just taking it up the arse.

[Occulus]

81. Now THERE is a picture worth a thousand words.

Holy fuck.

That's really hard to argue with.

[woo me with science]

82. K&R

The people need to wake up. We outnumber them.

[go west young man]

85. Here's a great article on Telecom ownership, the 1996 dereg act, and Net Neutrality.

Once again large corporations control everything, manipulate prices, receive subsidies, derail new technologies, and have politicians in their pocket while consumers get screwed and pay for it.
Includes a chart that shows current Telecom regions and ownership.

http://tech.icrontic.com/articles/a-net-neutrality-history-lesson-how-us-telecom-became-such-a-trainwreck/

[go west young man]

86. Another great resource when it comes to monopolies

and interconnectedness between government and corporations is Theyrule.net
Link here: http://www.theyrule.net/
And a You Tube video on how to use it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udlyqGFW9Ps

[orbitalman]

87. K & R x 1000 n/t

[me b zola]

91. K&R

[deacon_sephiroth]

92. terrifying

remember when "too big to fail" meant "TOO DAMN BIG" and they would go break it up... How far to the right the country has drifted that they wouldn't DREAM of doing that now.

[The Wizard]

93. But we have a choice

corporate feudalism or predatory capitalism. Either way the working class is the new serf class.
They got their wish: the return of that traditional American value, slavery, but in a cheap disguise. Either work for the corporate lords or starve. We're fucked, without being kissed and with our pants on. They don't even offer lube.

[Rhythm]

94. Equally chilling 30-year media consolidation chart... from 50 to 6

[deutsey]

106. I thought of this graphic, too

Whenever I get into an argument with a rightwinger and they start blathering about the "liberal media", I ask them if they're aware that most media are owned by five or six mega-conglomerations bent on maximizing profits, not marxist collectives espousing "liberal" propaganda.

They usually just stare at me or quickly deflect the conversation in another direction.

[MrMickeysMom]

95. When you express it like this, it SURE gets the message across!

[mother earth]

96. Is it any wonder they are too big to fail? Add zero accountability

to the profit drive...is it any wonder we are where we are? As others have pointed out, it's not just the banks, oil, media, etc. Zero competition, and now they must have zero regulation espoused by the GOP? Aren't we there already?

[blkmusclmachine]

98. Reality: The ones with the most $$$ win, and then begin to dictate what they want to become law:

That graph really demonstrates the true meaning of the "Reagan Revolution," a GOP/"New Democrat" Wet Dream.

[Pacifist Patriot]

99. Wonder what the graphic would be like at 25 years.

I remember when Wachovia gobbled up my local bank in Cobb County, GA. Could be 100+ to 4 in 25

[Selatius]

100. Behold! I give you ... The Four Horsemen!!! nt

[mmonk]

104. We need a Teddy Roosevelt.

[sfpcjock]

105. This is such a great graphic.

Thanks, Kansas!

[Stuart G]

108. k & r thanks for posting...nt

[TomClash]

110. Do you have a link to this chart? nt

[KansDem]

112. I believe it originally appeared on "Mother Jones" about a year or so ago...

I've searched the MJ website but did not find the original article that this graph accompanied. Perhaps a more thorough search might find it.

If you right-click on the graph and click on "Properties," you'll see the link.

Hope this helps! :hi:

[TomClash]

120. Thanks nt

[KansDem]

122. I think I found it!

See post no. 121. :)

[Larry Ogg]

124. Here's the link

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/bank-merger-history

[TomClash]

125. Thanks nt

[Change Happens]

113. Watch regulators fuck up B of A...This bank HAS TO BE closed!!!

Put out of business. liquidated, broken up...etc.

[apnu]

114. Anybody got a link to the orginal MJ article with that graphic? (nt)

[KansDem]

121. I think I found it!

It's from January/February, 2010.

How Banks Got Too Big to Fail

The nation's 10 largest financial institutions hold 54 percent of our total financial assets; in 1990, they held 20 percent. In the meantime, the number of banks has dropped from more than 12,500 to about 8,000. Some major mergers and acquisitions over the past 20 years.

Mother Jones

Not much text, but it appears to be a part of a larger look at how we got into the current economic malaise.

[jwirr]

115. And that may very well be why we are in this economic mess.

[gtar100]

116. wow! Very telling graph. What's inevitably next when capitalism demands growth?

4 3 2 1 bust!

Wheel's turning round and round.

[amborin]

118. same with publishers....

[dash_bannon]

128. This is Capitalism's End Game

In time, these four will be two. When the next crash hits, it'll be game over for a generation or longer.

[The2ndWheel]

130. It's civilization's endgame

[geardaddy]

131. Rec

They won't stop until real life resembles "Idiocracy"

[SOS]

132. State monopoly capitalism is the final stage of this system

Stand by for Credit Anstalt 1931 redux.

That'll take down the final four.
After the fires are extinguished, we'll finally be able to get a US Treasury credit card.

[Larry Ogg]

133. If Ponzi schemes are legalized by venal politicians, is it still a Ponzi scheme?

When venal politicians give criminal banksters the right to counterfeit the money needed to keep their Ponzi scheme going, is it still counterfeiting?

When criminals use the their Ponzi scheme profits, to buy and control the M$M (main stream media), and thereby, hand pick the venal and incompetent politicians most Americans will vote for, can we call this a Democracy?

[jpstiel]

134. Let's Act Now to Save a Rough Time Later

If you don't have the greatest understanding of a business entity, from reading this thread now you have the idea that "capitalism always moves toward a monopoly" in the front of your head. It is usually the case that when a company gets so massive, they gouge the prices.

Technological advances will, put more and more people out of jobs -- A machine flipping burgers, IBM's Watson as a school teacher, a machine driving cabs, more machines putting cars together, and machines that repair other machines (like a machine airplane mechanic). This is inevitable, as corporations and entities seek the most cost effective solutions.

These will create problems, because the Government itself is a corporation already, whose revenue is based on the revenue of other Businesses and Individuals within it. Obviously there will be a huge boom in robotic programming and like industries to create this, which will create those jobs. But America will need to import a whole lot of foreign talent because most kids go to school for an MBA and other Business Degrees.

So here is my plan;


the "20 Year Plan"

Invest in Technology and Software teaching in schools like crazy, like DOD budget crazy. Expect there to be less unskilled labor in the future because we will be programming robots to do that.
Here is the part where I lose you or captivate you: During these 20 years, we prepare to become one entity. A job that is guaranteed with good performance, our representatives actually vote for things we want, and a better quality of life. It is very possible. There are a million ideas that need to be thought out, but there will be no one person leading the movement. Eventually we would become more tied in with other countries and they can join us.
During all of this Human Kind can spend countless man-hours not on war, but on Medicine, Space Exploration, and fun new activities.

I was going to wait later in life to start talking about this, but this thread got me going.