In our project we quickly learned that the notion of “competition” as we have been led to believe it is, in fact, not the norm. Most sectors of the economy are completely dominated by 4, 5 or 6 corporations. These multi-nationals, as they are called, own shares in each other. It is, of course, a picture of a vast web, or the so-called “interdependence” we hear about.

The whole notion of competition seems to be preserved by an illusion-- an illusion of independence. Thus in the vast corporate holdings of Philip Morris, for example, one can find several different kinds of foods which appear to be competing, but which are owned by the same parent organization. Likewise, the history of just the last 20 years shows a “merger and acquisition” frenzy, which has the effect of reducing competition, not enhancing it.

There doesn’t seem to be much of a “level playing field,” either.  The multi-nationals, in an economy of scale, have all of the advantages. They can buy out or run out their “competition” by lowering prices temporarily until competitors can no longer stay in business profitably. More often than not, it is easier for all to simply neutralize  potentially ruinous competition by merging. The corporations do not WANT competition, but they want to preserve the illusion of it. Where are the competitive prices in the current California energy crisis, for example?

As a special note, one should consider the impact of only 6 giant news and entertainment companies. With so few people in control of the major media, what are the possibilities of getting real “news?” Perhaps one should say instead that the news we see is packaged and pre-approved (pre-censored?) by the corporate owners of the media outlets. Magazines, book publishing, TV and radio, cable and other telecommunications are inextricably tied up with entertainment conglomerates, which might have something to do with the kind of news we see.

One last thing we found is intriguing.  Corporations share a unique status in the United States--they are “equal to humans under the law,” as indeed The Supreme Court decided in 1883, without actually hearing any arguments on the issue (Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, 1883).They are “artificial persons.” This means that corporations, which are just collections of individual private investors, have  Civil Rights guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment. This has all sorts of ramifications, if one stops to think about it. They can’t be made subject to a myriad of state laws and charters, for example. They effectively are “regulated” by the Federal Government, and, if they “buy” that Federal Government  with large campaign contributions, they end up regulating themselves. Their right to make money is equal to a human’s right to the “pursuit of happiness,” and so their political control, coupled with their economic might, is more important and outweighs the interests of the majority of the citizens.

All of these points can be debated, certainly. But  there can be no denying that the modern American, and increasingly global, corporation wields exceptional power. Once citizens are aware of the dimensions of this reality, they can decide what they wish to do about it.

back