Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
While admirers of capitalism, we also to a certain extent believe it has limitations that require government intervention in markets to make them work.
We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels.
'Capitalism' is a dirty word for many intellectuals, but there are a number of studies showing that open economies and free trade are negatively correlated with genocide and war.
The guiding principle is not to manufacture the goods everyone needs, rather to earn profits for a few capitalists.
From the beginning of time, business has cozied up to government and gotten restrictions on competition and subsidies and stuff.
I'm not denying that monopolies are terrible things, but I am denying that it is readily easy to resolve them through legislation of that nature.
That means following a very restrictive fiscal and monetary policy which will squeeze the monopolies and cut their subsidies. On the micro level we will allow other economic agents, both domestic and foreign, to compete with them.
With respect to the first of these obstacles, it has often been made a matter of grave complaint against Political Economists, that they confine their attention to Wealth, and disregard all consideration of Happiness or Virtue.
The principle of building an economy without foreign monopoly capital has become a principle which, for us, is no longer subject to amendment.
The historical debate is over. The answer is free-market capitalism.