Commitment and Betrayal

• Date: 01 June 2016
• Author: William J. Curran
• Published date: 01 June 2016
• DOI: 10.1177/0003603X16641235

Article

Commitment and Betrayal:

Contradictions in American

Democracy, Capitalism,

and Antitrust Laws

William J. Curran III*

Abstract

Our nation has become a wealth-based contradiction of a democracy with 20% of Americans owning

almost 90% of America’s wealth. Creating wealth is antitrust’s goal, but any wealth created defaults

automatically to the wealthy, adding to democracy’s peril. Democracy must be saved from antitrust

and the negative distributional impact of the wealth it creates. It is time for its repeal.

Keywords

wealth inequality, antitrust and democracy, antitrust’s repeal

When economic inequalities are gross, the circumstances are not propitious for democracy.

1

When the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of ... income ... as it ... seems likely to do

in the twenty-first [century], capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities

that radically undermine ... the ... values on which democratic societies are based.

2

Antitrust has ... a built-in preference for material prosperity, but it has nothing to say about the ways

prosperity is distributed. ...

3

The contradictions between democracy and capitalism are stark. Democracy seeks greater equality,

while capitalism requires inequality. Democracy seeks restraint and prudence, while capitalism

requires unrestrained action and self-interest. If capitalism is achievable and found throughout history,

democracy is illusive and difficult to find. Their contradictions have never been starker than in today’s

America.

*The Antitrust Bulletin, Wexford, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

William J. Curran III, The Antitrust Bulletin, Wexford, PA, USA.

Email: bcurran3@comcast.net

1. CARL COHEN,DEMOCRACY 118 (1971).

2. THOMAS PIKETTY,CAPITAL IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY 1 (2014).

3. ROBERT H. BORK,THE ANTITRUST PARADOX:APOLICY AT WAR WITH ITSELF 90 (1978).

The Antitrust Bulletin

2016, Vol. 61(2) 236-255

ªThe Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0003603X16641235

abx.sagepub.com

America has become a wealth-based contradiction of a democracy. Almost 90%of our nation’s

wealth

4

is owned by 20%of the population, while the remaining 10%of wealth is owned by 80%

percent—some 255 million middle class and poor.

5

For many to have little wealth makes democracy

impossible. And, certainly, for few to have great wealth makes their domination of the 80%easy,

6

betraying our nation.

7

How has it happened? Events have converged. Politics, economics, and culture

are intersecting at this point in history. Politics are conservative. Policies and laws protect the wealthy

and encourage wealth’s accumulation. Economics provides the conservative intellectual basis, ignor-

ing democracy. Culture cushions the antidemocratic consequences, making 80%of citizens keenly

aware of capitalism’s enticing material benefits, while desensitizing them to the huge political advan-

tages of the 20%. This convergence fixes America’s political direction and fate, making a course

correction difficult without braving the new directions of scholars like Thomas Piketty.

Since remedying wealth’s inequality becomes highly unlikely,

8

congressional conservatives

and liberals are unlikely to repeal complicit laws, like the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Never-

theless, what is difficult is necessary, as Professor Piketty argues.

9

Americans must be fairly

and equitably treated, neutralizing the advantages of great wealth,

10

balancing the politics of

4. See What We Know about Wealth, http://harvardmag.com/pdf/2011/11-pdfs/1111-12pdf.

5. Details are not where the devil resides here. The details are overwhelmingly one-sided. The wealthy overwhelm the poor’s

and most of the middle class’s wealth. If there is dispute as to numbers’ accuracy, it is a dispute only about the margins of the

data. See www.nyTImes.com/2014/07/24/opi nion/nicholas-kristof-idiots-guide-to-in equality-piketty-capital.htmlI?_r¼0.

Yet, it is that ‘‘impeccable statistician’’ Michael Moore who has reported that it is financial wealth—not all wealth—of

which the top 1%owns more than the bottom 95%.See www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/march/10/michael-

moore/michael-moore-says-400-americans-have-more-wealth. Twenty percent of America’s richest do own upwards of

90%of all wealth. See www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/11/01/occupy-wall-street-and-the-rhetoric-of-equality;

also see Wolff, Asset Price Meltdown and the Wealth of the Middle Class (National Bureau of Economic Research, Working

Paper No. 18559, Nov. 2012), www.nber.org/papers/w18559.

6. Joseph E. Stiglitz agrees. See JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ,THE PRICE OF INEQUALITY:HOW TODAY’SDIVIDED SOCIETY ENDANGERS

OUR FUTURE 289 (2012) (‘‘[W]e are unlikely to achieve a fair and responsive political system within an economic

system that is charac terized by a degree of ine quality that marks ours .’’). He worri es that ‘‘Time m ay be running out’’

for change and that ‘‘Today ... hope is flickering.’’ Id.at290.Also see Jonathan B. Baker & Steven C. Salop,

Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Inequality, 104 GEO.L.J.ONLINE 1, 8 (2015) (‘‘This political effect can make

inequality self-reinforcing: the economic power of those at the top gives the wealthy political power, which can be

used to entrench and enhance their economic power ... and so on. This vicious cycle creates the possibility that

inequality could threaten our democracy.’’).

7. See Paul Krugman, Oligarchy, American Style,N

EW YORK TIMES (Nov. 4, 2011) (‘‘[E]xtreme concentration of income is

incompatible with real democracy. Can anyone doubt that our political system is being warped by the influence of big

money, and that the warping is getting worse as the wealth of a few grows even larger.’’),www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/

opinion/oligarchy-american-style.

8. It will not be easy for a host of reasons, some of which are addressed in this article. The particular remedy rejected here—

vigorous antitrust enforcement—is an oxymoron. Antitrust laws cannot be vigorously enforced since the Supreme Court has

interpreted the Sherman and Clayton Acts to favor big business. So when Professor Stiglitz, to choose one notable example,

advocates more vigor in enforcement, he is advocating a sure-to-fail solution. See STIGLITZ,supra note 6, at 161. Such a

remedy will, as this article argues, make the inequalities of wealth worse. New legislation addressing and limiting corporate

size and profits is required.

9. See PIKETTY,supra note 2, at 1 (‘‘Whenthe rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth of output and income ... as it

seems likely to do ... in the twenty-first [century], capitalism automatically generates arbitrary and unsustainable

inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values on which democratic societies are based.’’).

10. The 2012 elections reportedly cost $6.3 billion. See www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/12/the-2012-election-our-price-tag-

fin/. It was the nation’s most expensive election cycle. It has been reported for the 2010 cycle that ‘‘just 17 individuals gave

more than $500,000 each.’’ It was also reported that wealthy donors ‘‘spent$774 million—24.3 percent of all money from

individuals that went to candidates, PACS, political parties and independent expenditure groups. ...’’ Report: Wealthy

‘‘Elite Donors’’ Fueling U.S. Politics (Dec. 14 , 2011), www.npr.org/2011/12/14/14 3730288/top-donors-make-up-one-

quarter-of-campaign-donations.

Curran 237