Monopoly Money

Contrary to popular belief, monopolies are not illegal in the United States. In fact, the federal government only gets involved when it can be proven that a monopolistic corporation has engaged in price fixing or similar noncompetitive practices, which doesn't happen very often. When it does, the Federal Trade Commission and the Supreme Court essentially get to decide which are the "good" monopolies and which are the "bad" monopolies.

And we both know which kind this is. 
Not once has a game ever ended without someone saying "Fuck this."

Groucho Marx once said that history repeats itself, first as a tragedy, then as a farce. Actually, wait... now that I think about it, that was Karl, sometimes referred to as the "least funny of the Marx Brothers." Commonly portrayed as the number one arch-enemy of American values, Marx waxed philosophical in envisioning this thing he called "communism" as a sort of economic democracy that would be administered by the state. It was all theory, of course. He never saw it come into fruition within his lifetime (nor, do I suspect, would he want to take credit for the perverse ways in which his ideas have historically been implemented), but the basic concept was to create a government designed to protect the people's interests, particularly when it came to the exploitation of their labor.

In Das Kapital (1867/1883/1894), Marx criticized what he saw to be the insatiable greed that fuels capitalism, arguing that the principle of constant expansion is inherently flawed. In order for shareholders' profits to continually increase, that revenue has to come from somewhere. According to Marx, it comes from artificially inflating a commodity's exchange value relative to its use value (charging more for less), increasing worker productivity or simply paying employees less -- at least relative to inflated commodity prices. More often than not, it's all of the above. In other words, that executive's bonus came from you, the employee and consumer. To Marx, money is an abstract commodity that draws its value from the backs of the proletariat (the people who actually do the labor), but which is then accumulated by the capitalists who own the means of production.

He also believed that eventually these companies get too big for the public good, and only a strong central government could intervene on the people's behalf. As a man who spent most of his life in abject poverty, Marx simply saw communism as being the next logical step of human civilization after the collapse of capitalism, which he believed was inevitable because of the unsustainable wealth inequality that it fostered. To him, an ideal system of government represented the coming together of the citizenry in order to protect their common interests from the greedy capitalists, who he saw as being something akin to the feudal lords of yesteryear. Here in the US, people seemed to think so, too, as the term "robber baron" was applied to these men of extraordinary means.

In real life, we all know that rich white guys rarely go to prison.

History has proven that in practice, many of the same fundamental flaws exist in both of the "Big C" economic systems... specifically the potential for corruption by those who are granted more privilege or authority than others. That is, even if we had a perfectly equitable system of commodity and labor exchange, or a form of government that was clearly better than the sum of its parts, we still have imperfect human beings to make terrible decisions on everyone else's behalf.

Although Marx was writing about conditions that he saw in London and elsewhere in Europe, similar circumstances existed in the US at that time. Wealth inequality was at record levels, and so steps were taken by the United States government to break up some of these monopolies. Not all of them, mind you, just the "bad" ones.

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was designed to allow private parties to bring suit against a company that they believe to be a bad monopoly. The burden of proof therefore rested on the prosecution to prove how their clients were financially wronged by this company as a direct result of its monopolistic practices. If a lawsuit was deemed viable, it was then filed by the US Attorney General to appear before the Supreme Court.

Go ahead and congratulate yourself if you
knew that this wasn't the Supreme Court.

One of the first such cases was raised against Standard Oil, owned by John D. Rockefeller, who was a major proponent of social darwinism. Adjusted for inflation, he is the richest person who has ever lived... because he controlled the oil market at a time when America was rapidly industrializing. Back in 1890, the Standard Oil Trust accounted for 88% of all oil production in the US. Two years later, they were determined to be in violation of Sherman Antitrust Act. It then took another 19 years before the mega-corporation was finally split into Amoco, Texaco, Exxon and Chevron, all of which were still controlled by Rockefeller and his heirs. So you tell me who won.

I'll give you a hint: they're wearing fancy hats.

In 1893, the Supreme Court decided that labor unions could also constitute a monopoly that warranted government investigation and dissolution if deemed to be in violation of antitrust statutes. In the United States v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council of New Orleans, the final score was corporations one, labor unions zero. That was over a hundred years ago. Corporations have long since taken the pennant.

In 1895, the US Attorney General filed an antitrust suit against the American Sugar Refining Company, which controlled a whopping 98% of the domestic market at that time. However, this was determined to be a "good" monopoly because they weren't doing anything that was expressly illegal. Besides, it wasn't like Americans could ever get too much sugar!

In 1911, the executive branch engaged in a similarly futile attempt to break up US Steel. This was a corporate conglomeration created a decade earlier by JP Morgan (the actual guy that Uncle Moneybags from Monopoly is based on) and another insanely rich dude named Elbert H. Gary. US Steel controlled 67% of steel production in this country at a time when steel was in record demand, all thanks to the booming auto industry and the looming world war. Despite that US Steel had essentially bought up all of its competition, the Supreme Court ultimately decided that they should be allowed to continue on with business as usual, consumer be damned.

Theodore Roosevelt, who was President from 1901-1909, built a reputation in Washington as a "trust buster." In many ways, Roosevelt was the personification of how this nation saw itself. He was a rugged badass who once finished a speech even after being shot by an attempted assassin. No shit. "Teddy" Roosevelt also had a face that was made for national monuments and turn-of-the-century political cartoons. That said, despite his well-honed reputation as a card-carrying progressive, Roosevelt was really more "pro-regulation" than he was "anti-monopoly."

...unlike most people who have ever played the board game, who are resolutely on the side of anti-monopoly.

"Carry a big stick and hire a decent illustrator."

Roosevelt did launch the antitrust suit against the Northern Securities Railroad Company, which was owned by perennial supervillain JP Morgan and which ultimately dissolved in 1904 as a result of the Attorney General's investigation. This is essentially why Roosevelt is a national hero: he proved that an elected representative of the American people still held more power than the wealthiest of its citizens. At a time when it seemed like the robber barons had won, he showed America and the world that democracy wasn't dead yet.

In 1914, Congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act in an attempt to clarify what exactly constituted a bad monopoly, because many of these cartels were just becoming legitimate corporations, finding legal loopholes that allowed them to circumvent the antitrust laws. The Clayton Act tried to close some of those loopholes. It basically said that if these companies were determined to be limiting fair competition or charging more for their goods or services as a direct result of their monopolistic practices, then this was bad. Otherwise, bigger could only be better. Right?

Hollywood sure thought so. By 1929, the "Big Five" studios (MGM, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Universal and RKO) accounted for about 90% of the film industry, controlling every aspect of their movies from production to distribution to exhibition. The "studio system" produced motion pictures in much the same way that Detroit was producing cars and it thrived throughout this period, which is why this is commonly referred to as the "Golden Age" of Hollywood.

In 1948, this all came to an end with the United States v. Paramount Pictures, where the Supreme Court determined that the system as it existed did in fact constitute a monopoly. The studios could either sell off their production, distribution or exhibition facilities. They chose to divest themselves of their theaters. Since it was at the end of the economic food chain, the studios could still charge independent theater owners exorbitant fees to rent their film prints. In fact, this is basically why popcorn usually costs more than your movie ticket. Theaters make most of their money from concessions.

As in: you concede to pay $8.50 for about 20¢ worth of popcorn.

Of course, now just about all of those independent movie theaters have been bought up by giant chains. American Multi-Cinema, for example, better known as AMC, is now the biggest theater franchise in the country and the world with nearly a thousand movie theaters and over ten thousand screens in the US and Europe. They're also owned by a Chinese company... but that's a different article altogether.

You may also be thinking, "Hey, aren't there still just a handful of movie studios that make almost everything that plays at the cineplexes? And haven't ancillary markets like television and home video more than made up for any lost revenue from not owning theater chains?" If so, give yourself a pat on the back for being so darn smart.

Today, there are six corporations that own most of American media: Time-Warner, GE, Disney, News Corp, CBS and Viacom.

This is Jeff Bewkes, the CEO of Time Warner:

...properties of which include Warner Brothers Pictures, HBO, Cinemax, CNN, Time, TBN and TNT.





Here's Jeffrey R. Immelt, CEO of GE:

...which controls Universal Pictures, NBC, USA, E! and the Weather Channel, etc.






And this is Robert A. Iger, current CEO of Disney:

...which, in addition to the Disney studios and theme parks, owns Marvel Studios, Pixar, Miramax, ABC, ESPN, A&E and Lifetime, among other media properties.






Of course, we can't forget Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp:

...who oversees operations of 20th Century Fox, Fox, Fox News, FX, HarperCollins, Barron's and the New York Post. From what I can tell, he was also the inspiration for Emperor Palpatine in Return of the Jedi.





Here's Leslie Moonves, CEO of CBS:

...which, in addition to your grandparents' favorite television channel, also owns Showtime and the publisher Simon & Schuster.






And then there's Robert M. Bakish, who only recently replaced Sumner Redstone as the CEO of Viacom:

...which owns Paramount Pictures, MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, etc.






Ok, now what do they all have in common?




1. They have never been in my kitchen.

2. They all look like the antagonist from a Rodney Dangerfield movie.

3. Each of these guys has more money than you and I could even begin to comprehend.

4. Something about their gender and complexion, and maybe the socioeconomic class that they were born into. I can't quite put my finger on it...

I know what it is now. They all look like models from a catalog that sells yacht shoes.

These six obscenely wealthy white men wield influence over a vast majority of mainstream American media. This is where most of our public discourse occurs, so consider that these men ultimately control much of the national conversation. This seems like the kind of a situation that would constitute a "bad" monopoly. Then again, I don't write the laws. Lobbyists do.

Here's another one. Did you know that there are ten companies that produce just about every manufactured commodity that you buy at the supermarket? Look at the label. Unless it is the store brand (which, even then, is most likely manufactured at the same plants, just with different packaging), there is a very good chance that it was produced and distributed by either Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Nestlé or Kraft/Mondelez International.

You can go ahead and check. I'll wait.

Again, these are all apparently "good" monopolies. Your house is probably full of products from these ten companies. But doesn't it seem at all troublesome to think that once again, there are ten CEOs who ultimately control so much of what we ingest and consume? Also, doesn't it seem strange to think that Fancy Feast cat food and Gerber baby food are made by the same company? Or that both Taco Bell and Cap'n Crunch are owned by Pepsi?

I'll do one more. There are currently four banks in the United States that control over seven trillion dollars in assets. That is nearly half of our GDP. Bank of America holds about $2.2 trillion, Citigroup has approximately $1.7 trillion, Wells Fargo has about $1.9 trillion, and JP Morgan/Chase is responsible for an astounding $2.4 trillion dollars. Yes, even long after he is dead, JP Morgan lives on in the name of one of the richest banks in the world.

To put these astronomical figures into perspective, if you laid two trillion one dollar bills end-to-end, it would reach further than the distance from the earth to the sun and then back again. Seriously. I'm no communist, but that seems like a pretty obscene accumulation of capital.

Beware of the robber barons. The American trust is broken.