Just as there is a growing concentration of wealth and growing inequality in the population, there is a growing concentration of wealth in the corporate world.
Only 30 Corporations earn half the total profit of all U.S. companies.
“There were 4,819 public US companies in 1975. Forty years on, that number has fallen by more than a fifth, hitting 3,766 in 2015. This peculiar dwindling is but one of the dramatic changes in US public corporations described in a new study published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives.
How else, then, have they evolved? Increasingly, it seems, through survival of the biggest. Not only are there fewer public companies; those that remain are older—and dominated by an ever-shrinking number of ever-growing behemoths….
“Of course, the bigger and richer the market Goliaths get, the harder it is for the Davids of the US economy to lethally bean them—and the need for R&D to compete may have exacerbated this. Companies drowning in cash can easily afford patents and the investments to develop those. Or, as seems to be happening, to buy the company with the patent. If you can’t beat Goliath, join him.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Can you say, “Monopoly Corporate Capitalism”?
Thank you Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and all the Congresses since 1975 for allowing and pushing neoliberalism and neoconservatism down our throats to overthrow the U.S., creating the bloated, greedy, parasitic oligarchy we now have.
LikeLike
Diane I was wondering: since I heard Betsy say that she should get SOME return for all the money she spends on donations, perhaps IF she thinks she should get some sort of control and/or payback, that she shouldn’t be able to claim the money she gives as “donations”?
Just a thought. And how much are politicians going for these days anyway?
LikeLike
Good point, Catherine. Her “donations” are investments since she expects a return. When I make a donation to an organization, I don’t expect to “get” anything. (Of course, my donations are minuscule, but I think it is weird that big donors want their names plastered across whatever structure they have funded.) I am supporting the work of people who I think know what they are doing.
LikeLike
speduktr Nothing will change–since they are writing all of the legislation anyway, . . . But I keep remembering Rockefeller and his support of PUBLIC libraries. There is such a thing as authentic philanthropy (not just a cover for self-interest and power mongering); and my guess is it’s not always shouted about nor does it show up as a plastered name on some wall somewhere. “Who are those guys?”
LikeLike
CBK, I think you meant Andrew Carnegie, who endowed about 2,500 public libraries, here and in the British Isles. He didn’t tell them what books to buy.
LikeLike
dianeravitch Yes, indeed. It was that other Rockefeller–the one named Carnegie. (Thanks for the correction.) Somehow, he understood the importance of both “public” and “library.”
LikeLike
Since they are not interested in the publicity, I guess we will never know. That is both refreshing and troubling since perhaps we lose sight of the fact that people “occasionally” give without any expectations of accolades. Being wealthy does not automatically make someone evil.
LikeLike
speduktr I do think there’s hope. But as you know, there’s also still enough evidence out there to be skeptical and even pessimistic about philanthropy. As a relevant aside, there is an article in “The Conversation” that came in today about (apparently) real do-good companies who run into public skepticism. I wonder why (duh). Link below:
https://theconversation.com/a-big-hurdle-do-good-companies-face-81357?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%201%202017%20-%2079966402&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20August%201%202017%20-%2079966402+CID_9b7dc932ce346e448250d7c7d90fe296&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=A%20big%20hurdle%20do-good%20companies%20face
LikeLike
Among these are companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google, GE) that are holding trillions of dollars offshore to avoid corporate income taxes.
Among these are also companies (eg, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America) that defraud the American public to the tune of tens of billions, are rarely held accountable (andeven then, only pay fines amounting to a fraction of the fraud) and even get bailed out by the American taxpayer.
LikeLike
These are the corporations considered “too big to fail.” They also use some of their profits to buy what should be public representatives to write legislation tailor made to benefit them, complete with eliminating safety regulations for workers and the public while including a great deal of corporate welfare.
LikeLike
Here’s a interesting look at the history of Monsanto, one of the most evil companies ever. As a former Coke Zero drinker, I found this article very revealing. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-complete-history-of-monsanto-the-worlds-most-evil-corporation/5387964
LikeLike
Billionnaire to SomeDAM poet: If it works, don’t fix it.
LikeLike
Amazon has to be up there, too, since WaPo reported this week that their owner Jeff Bezos briefly passed Gates as the worlds’s richest man.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2017/07/27/jeff-bezos-surpasses-bill-gates-to-become-richest-person-in-the-world/?utm_term=.41b77b1f789c
Did I miss a link to a list of the 30 companies?
LikeLike
the story did not list them.
LikeLike
The argument for charters used to be that the districts’ had become monopolies. Note that this doesn’t seem to bother the folks that are allowing our publicly traded companies to become virtual monopolies. Note also that there are mega charter management groups that are bigger than many school districts, usually run by oligarchies of related parties.
LikeLike
Good point.
LikeLike
Reminds you of Vonnegut’s RAMJAC Corp. One entity owns it all.
LikeLike
One Corporation, uber alles, unaccountable, with profits and dividends for few.
LikeLike
Your allegiance need not be pledged. You have no control over your allegiance any more, not anywhere in the world.
LikeLike
Translation: 30 corporations own half the politicians in the U.S.*
This excludes U.S. politicians owned by foreign corporations.
LikeLike
No, it would be 100% of politicians.
LikeLike
A terrific film “Rollerball” from 1975 (also a remake). One corporation owns everything, no more nations.
LikeLike
Thought one: where is Teddy Roosevelt
Thought two: Not saying I agree, but if Central Planning is an inefficient method of economic management for example the Soviet Union . If free markets are always more efficient. Than this consolidation would have a very short shelf, life in efficient markets.
Which brings us to,
Thought three: what is a patent and what do these Tariffs of sometimes 1000s of percents(Dean Baker) . Have to do with market capitalism . The fact that they are in the constitution aside. The constitution does not specify a day a week or a lifetime just that they are regulated by the federal Government.
Which brings us to government and its prime function “determining who gets what ” markets did not make these corporations bigger laws made them bigger . From Tax law that enabled them to avoid paying what others could not ‘AMAZON’ . To Patent laws that were made longer and stronger ‘Gates, Jobs, Pharma … …’ . To labor laws that were violations of Americans constitutional rights on several fronts, don’t take my word , that is what Truman said about Taft Hartley when he unsuccessfully vetoed it.
It would seem that corporations are people when it comes to political speech and their donations to Politicians. But people are not people when it comes to their freedom of speech in secondary boycotts
Someone is picking winners and losers and the winners like Bloomberg who sat next to Blankfein this morning on Morning Joe, will never admit how much they were given .
Anyone know how to spell BAILOUT . Or was that 17 trillion in continuing support from the Federal reserve , fake news. How did a one trillion dollar Mortgage crises require multiples of that amount . I was always taught that gambling was a vice .
After all; if “you do not want to pay for your neighbors bathroom” , Rick Santelli Koch brothers shill.
Where is the “moral hazard” of paying for Blankfein’s bad bets . By the way Mike Bloomberg what kind of business network are you? if you could not see a monumental housing bubble and the resulting collapse.
LikeLike
The LA Times had a link to something in Chalbeat today about Arne Duncan, John King, a bunch of the biggest charter chain CEOs, and billionaire-funded charter advocacy group presidents like Shavar Jeffries having a private, secret meeting in March. Someone leaked the meeting, which is probably code for the group purposely putting out a statement that makes it seem okay for them to take federal funds from DeVos while she cuts funding for public schools because some in the group “complained” (specifically not the CEOs who will choose to accept the money).
Why are there private meetings about public education? Why are there secrets? Why are only bits and pieces of information made public when elites of wealth meet about public education? (Please note they are elites of wealth, not of intellect or ability.) It is not only a problem that wealth is so concentrated; it is moreover a problem that concentrated wealth makes circumventing transparency and democracy so easy for them. There should be no private meetings involving officials of schools receiving public funding. There certainly should be no SECRET meetings involving school officials. (They shouldn’t even be storing their school related emails on private servers.)
LikeLike
“Or, as seems to be happening, to buy the company with the patent. If you can’t beat Goliath, join him.”
I’ve worked as a part time consultant for a few promising startups. The goal is always the same:
But lots of stock, attract attention, sell to one of the big corporations, and cash in.
LikeLike