This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Big Business is Economic Cancer, Part III
Big Business is Economic Cancer, Part III
Written by Jeff Nielson (click for original)
Part I of this series established how and why Small Business is superior to Big Business, in virtually every respect. Small Business creates employment. Big Business destroys employment. Small Business promotes competition. Big Business eliminates competition. Small Business contributes to the economies in which it is domiciled. Big Business does nothing but blood-suck any/every jurisdiction in which it exists.
Part II explained and demonstrated how the traitorous “free trade deals” negotiated by our corrupt governments had, in fact, made Big Business much more “cancerous”. This is largely due to the fact that these supposed “free trade” pacts bear utterly no resemblance whatsoever to the economic concept of free trade.
![]()
Free trade, as a matter of practicality, can only exist where all trade partners exist on a perfectly “level playing field”: equal wages, equal working conditions, equal tax structures, etc. None of our corrupt governments have ever made the tiniest effort to create this level playing field, thus none of these traitorous regimes was ever even attempting to negotiate “free trade”.
Instead, all of these political puppets were never doing anything other than serving their Big Business masters. They allowed and enabled these cancerous oligopolies to grow much, much larger... much, much more powerful... and even more corrupt – by simply erasing all of our borders, for the purposes of trade.
Meanwhile, through our regulatory structures, our tax codes, and (most importantly) the $trillions in Corporate welfare that is paid annually to Big Business, our corrupt governments are simultaneously engaging in Small Business genocide. They fatten Big Business, at every opportunity, and starve Small Business , at every opportunity.
What do we do about the treasonous economic policies of our Traitor Governments? Part II ended with a promise to provide some answers to that question. The starting-point here is obvious. It has already been pointed out how these pretend “free trade agreements” have been used to enormously fatten Big Business still further. Obviously tearing-up these agreements would be a good start in reversing this process.
That would need to be followed with a healthy dose of “protectionism”. In the world of the lying economists, lying bankers, and lying media talking-heads, “protectionism” is a four-letter word. However, this propaganda is exposed as nothing but vacuous brainwashing, by merely examining what protectionism really represents.
Protectionism is a policy of national trade barriers (i.e. tariffs) which limit – but do not exclude – the ability of other nations to trade with (and into) that economy. What these trade barriers do is to effectively create conditions for conducting trade within the particular sector that is regulated by those tariffs.
In other words, ideally, tariffs create the “level playing field” which cannot ever possibly exist, via our bastardized version of “free trade”. Obviously the previous regime of national tariffs which used to be in place was far from perfect. But at least it was theoretically geared at producing fair trade. There is no possibility that any of our (pretend) free trade agreements could ever produce anything remotely resembling fair trade.
However, perhaps the most-emphatic argument in favor of protectionism is to merely explain how it got its name. It’s called “protectionism” because the foremost objective of all tariffs is to protect the jobs within that economy. To call the evidence here “overwhelming” is an understatement.
Flash back 30 years to before our Traitor Governments began negotiating their treasonous “trade agreements”. Our economies had more-or-less full employment. What have we gotten from three decades of supposed “free trade”? Our (real) unemployment rate has roughly tripled. (Remember how all the Liars promised “ more jobs” with their “free trade”?)
But that’s only the start of the economic carnage and betrayal. As unemployment went straight up, our wages went straight down. Protectionism also “protects” wages. Three decades of “free trade” has roughly cut our wages (and standard of living) in half .
It gets worse. With three times as many unemployed and most of the rest of us being paid much less, government tax revenues have collapsed, while the demand for government support (from the newly unemployed) has soared. “Free trade” is also a major factor in bankrupting all of our governments.
However, ending all of this bastardized ‘free trade’ is just the beginning. Along with tearing-up every free-trade deal in sight, we must immediately end every penny of Corporate welfare – and thus free-up those $trillions per year for spending on people. Note how protectionism helps us put an end to Corporate welfare.
Today, if we threaten to cut off the welfare to one of these Big Business deadbeats, we know exactly what will happen, as was stated in Part II:
1) They harm the economy they are leaving, by taking away jobs and other economic activity.
2) They harm the economy they are entering, by blood-sucking it for extreme amounts of welfare.
3) They harm the economy they left a second time by selling their (heavily) subsidized goods back into that economy, preventing that economy from creating a new business to replace the corporation which deserted them.
Here it must be noted that the original harm from (1) is only temporary. The permanent harm comes from (3): our so-called “free trade agreement” prevents us from stopping the Traitor Corporation from dumping its goods back into our economy – and thus prevents any new enterprise from being started up in that economy to replace those lost jobs.
Not so with protectionism. What happens when these rapacious oligopolies play their game of “corporate blackmail”, and desert a particular jurisdiction because it won’t give in to their extortion, and give them all the welfare they demand?
The day after the Traitor Corporation leaves, the government (which is now free to act) immediately erectsa protective tariff. The tariff can be whatever size or form is necessary to ensure that the Traitor Corporation won’t be able to sell as much as a single paper-clip back into the jurisdiction they attempted to blackmail – and then abandoned.
No longer is corporate blackmail a win, win, win proposition for these Traitor Corporations. And if other nations wise-up, and tear-up their own “free trade deals”, there will be less and less places for these Traitor Corporations to run-and-hide, where they can still play their blackmail/welfare game.
Ultimately, however, these are the indirect means of whittling-down these (much, much, much too big) mega-corporations. The direct method of doing so is to enforce the laws which already exist in all Western nations.
All of the largest “big businesses” in our economies are totally illegal. In some cases, they are a hundred times larger than what is legally allowed by our anti-trust laws. Why do anti-trust laws dramatically limit the size of corporations? Just re-read the three parts of this series.
More specifically, our anti-trust laws are carefully drafted to limit corporations to sane proportions in order to limit their ability to corrupt markets and governments. Case in point: the totally corrupt hegemony of the Western bloc could never have come into existence if there were not gigantic mega-corporations large enough to literally buy-off each and every one of these governments.
Politicians are cheap. We have corporations who are wallowing in $trillions in ill-gotten capital (much of it Corporate welfare), and we have political leaders who (absurdly) can be bought-off with mere $millions, or sometimes even $thousands. This is (now) nothing more than “tip money” for these mega-corporations. They can buy-off all our governments through merely opening up their petty-cash drawer.
We can NEVER have honest, legitimate government, ever again – not in our lives, not in the lives of our great, great grandchildren – unless and until we begin re-enforcing our anti-trust laws, and smash these mega-corporations into tiny, little pieces.
This is the choice facing us today. Permanent saturation-corruption. Permanently worsening unemployment. Permanently falling wages. Permanently broke/bankrupt governments. Permanent debt-slavery. None of these worsening trends can ever he halted (let alone reversed) until these mega-corporations are shrunken back within legal limits.
Referring to Big Business as “cancer” is not a perfect analogy. Actual cancer is not as virulent, not as terminal, and in most cases, much more treatable than the “disease” of Big Business. But in one sense, it’s a perfect analogy, since we all know the only sane approach when dealing with “cancer”: eradicate it, at any/all costs.
Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE
- advertisements -

The melody is well known. Why is it that always the big wins all the game. Followed by stanza and stanza.
First fallacy employed: the bigger is the bigger and cannot be checked and taught lectures from a minor position.
Second: The game is not restricted to the listed market participants of small and big business and there bosses and CEO's, meaning to dig intellectually for a solution between the contradictions offered will be a futile maneuver.
The solution to the problem is laying on the table.
Give me the control over the money and I don't care - what? - who is making the law that maybe discomfort my views and projects.
People have to come to the point to decide what is to pay and what not.
As this is the most natural approach to the matter concerning you buy something (endangered freedom).
If you pay for debts, mortgages and rents and so on your free choice is gone and with it your freedom, respect and honor because you have to pay with near to zero opportunity of protest and you cannot toss this fact by healing words and papers.
This nut must got cracked.
It is the basis of big corporation's success. The public must be put into the ring where the real deal takes place.
Good article, and salient points are made.
But, society will have to go much, much further than this. Corporate thinking is completely bankrupt. It is an anathema, in need of a serious moral and ethical overhaul.
When great hordes of Asian labor became available, the FIRST reaction of western corporate crony thinking was to seek competitive advantage in labor cost reduction. It also quickly saw major savings in not having to comply with what big business has ALWAYS seen as expensive regulatory burdens.
It claimed that either the "other guy" was leveraging this near-endless supply of cheap labor...or soon would...and therefore, we had to do it too.
Always was the fraudulent claim that it was "free trade", and that we would greatly benefit by joining, and in many cases leading, the bonsai charge into this mindless globalism. NEVER did these corporate hacks consider that their outsourcing madness would backfire if carried through to its logical endpoint. NEVER were ANY of them made responsible for retraining the workforce they left behind. NEVER were they forced to make good on their promise that we'd have even better jobs to replace the ones we were giving up.
These SOB's were NEVER held to explain how in the hell someone making a couple of bucks a day in China could possibly have the money to consume anything from us. Especially, consumption sufficient to maintain--let alone grow--an American standard of living here at home. Ditto for Mexican and Central American labor.
In fact, the outsourced jobs to Mexico were so empowering...Latinos have continued to stream into the U.S., illegally, by the millions, looking for better opportunities than they had at home!
Lying western corporate big shots NEVER explained how these people could possibly become consumers of American goods, if they were going to make LESS than we did to do so.
And what were we going to be making to sell them on such limited means anyway?
Why wouldn't they make THAT too?
There's sooooo much more to say here, but it's been a long day. Pick it up later.
m
""Along with tearing-up every free-trade deal in sight, we must immediately end every penny of Corporate welfare – and thus free-up those $trillions per year for spending on people. Note how protectionism helps us put an end to Corporate welfare.""
This is contradictory if 'spending on the people' means government (false) philanthropy. If corporate welfare is bad, why is any government expediture that takes from one person or group and gives to another not bad as well? Corporate welfare is bad because it is an injustice. It violates the property rights of some people, taking what they have created with their life efforts, and hands it by force to another group of people to whom it does not belong (some corporation.) Further, it violates the rights of the competitors of those benefited corporatations in that particular market by forcibly handing the favored corporations a market advatage. And still further, every tax paying individual's liberty is violated by being forced to support a favoritism regime that directly worsens (NOT IMPROVES) his options as a consumer and lessens the value that FAIRLY competing corporations would be forced to offer.
Theft by government to benefit some favored corporation is no different in principle than theft by government to benefit some favored class of individuals (eg an arbitrarily defined 'poor').
This is as old as dirt. An injustice is identified truly, but instead of encouraging the restriction of law to rooting out and eliminating injustice, rather it is proposed to use law to create a sort of counter injustice to somehow 'level things up.' And around and around we spiral down......
The author totally lost me when he said that protectionism was the antidote to corporatism and corporate welfare. Protectionism IS corporate welfare. It shields markets from competition. You may recall the "Tariff of Abomination"(1828) and it's predecessors from US history and all the sectional rancor and bloodshed protective tariffs engendered some thirty odd years later (Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, it's all about slavery!). The ink wasn't dry on the Constitution and the colonial heavy hitters of that era were attempting to transform the revenue tariff into a protective tariff to protect their "tender green shoots" of industry from competition and force their fellow citizens to their markets. If the author really wants to "level the playing field" then he would support laissez faire free markets and eliminate government protected monopolies such as the Federal Reserve, among other things. Please, make my day, tell me all about laissez faire free enterprise fostering private monopolies!
I agree and disagree with the statement that "Big business is cancer". It can be a great driver of economy. A core. Some economies have few options. Multiple big businesses can present a bullet proof economy. BUT. They are a cancer, when allowed to grow without control. They can take over control. Kill everything. Finally killing the host. Which kills themselves.
Their inherent power has to be constantly, carefully, controlled and directed. For the good of the whole and for the businesses themselves. To allow them to focus only on the immediate bottom line is suicidal for all. To allow the ones running them to pervert the overall intent for self enrichment without providing useful enrichment to the business as a whole, allows those few to be truly cancerous. They will destroy all for their own ends.
I feel it is not big business that is the main problem. It is those in charge of them. They seek personal enrichment first by minimal work. They are usually not the owners, founders. They are employees who are at the top. They have no pride in the company, it's real value, it's worth to the world at large. It is their ATM. Money, be it imaginary or real, is their measure. Not accomplishments measured in other terms. There was a time when even those tagged as robber barons, ran companies that made huge tangible accomplishments. Moved whole countries forward.
There are still robbers. They are CEOs and such at giant companies. But they lack any shred of nobility. Not Barons. Just serfs with lots of money.
200,000 pounds of radiation and heavy metals were blasted into the atmosphere.
Its horrific, here is the proof using EPA data.
They could have cut the dose American took by just saying stay out of the rain for 2 months. Its criminal what they did. And Gina McCarthy, an assistant at EPA put in charge of shutting the radiation monitors down, was then put in the top position at the EPA. Now she is being impeached, that is the second link below.
Check it out folks. We need to reign in the sociopathic methods used by those are sworn to protect us.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphe...
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/10/epa-rots-from-head-down-imp...
Bravo to some excelent ideas!
While we acknowledge "Government" and its unique nature as a Politicalized Power Collective Cult (PPCC), it will Win in its war upon Humanity.
Government always Wins no matter which Party gets elected; Your vote means nothing but your acknowledgement of Government. Government's enemy is Humanity. Governments' goal in Principle is, a priori, Totalitarian Control of Humanity.
Lobby also Wins as by the act of Lobby and its receipts, Government also Wins. ALL Governments, in terms of Human Reason and established Rights, are thoroughly Corrupt; not corrupted, but by default, corrupt - by its very nature.
Power (Government) is a numeric, dependent Entity and has no care who leads. Power has its own agenda, which is survival - and which it achieves through expansion - of its numbers.
To defeat Power, is simple, albeit in Theory: Deplete its numbers. To do this; Ignore it. And, Laugh at it.
There is No other alternative to defeat this phenomena that destroys Humanity.
To acknowledge Government, that is to say, Power, is to empower it.
Ho hum
The dismantling of the Republic has continued apace and picked up speed over the last 150 years.
It's almost like people who are smart know where the battlments are and assailed them...... or..... it could just look that way I guess?
In 1982/83 Ronald Reagan instituted the Self Employment Tax. It helped big business by hamstringing Self Employed entrapreneurs. Protectionist politics. The self employed are the cradle of new companies. They thrive on risk. It is exciting to them. They are more innovative. The big always have their cronies to stifle innovation. This formula is obsolete.
He made self employed individuals pay the employee & employer portion of social security instead of just employee. While a tax hike on them, really not that significant in terms of stifling innovation.
I was self a employed engineer/programmer at that time. The tax escalated over time. First I paid the FICA. Then I paid my income tax and then I paid the self employment tax. It escalated up to about 15% on top of the others. I was there. Many got into tax trouble and had to pay interest on top of that. I knew of one such engineer. It took him years to settle the debt.
I was developing innovative software indepently after work. I eventually had to abandon my efforts and go back to work for a corporation. So many got into tax trouble over this that the IRS eventually went after the corporations and made them pay the taxes. Yet another govt boondoggle. Eventually corporations quit with the 1099.
And oh yes the poor on minimum wage had their wages frozen for ten years. How would like your wages frozen for ten years?
It would take a couple of pages to counter argue this pt but I will say the rule on SS portion of FICA tax is capped and that amount is clawed back to avoid double taxation, also self employed enjoy a lot of writeoffs vs nonself employed. Any disagreement here and you need a new tax preparer. Every decision made should be based on taxes. The real argument is the rate and solvency of the programs vs the blame game on Reagan in that respect stated above.,
A picture is worth a thousand words:
http://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Self-Employment-Tax-Rate....
I had to pay a $280 penalty one year because I didn't withold enough-early enough. Oh I witheld enough, but I just didn't do it early enough in the year. Pathetic rules for income at that level. Anyway I got pretty good at handling it and after being "layed off" because our rates became too high I managed to find other work and even tried to get hired on a 1099 arrangement(using it as an incentive to hire me over others). Early on I was successful at times,(those unfamiliar with what was going on said my rates were too high) but later when the IRS started going after companies when the 1099 employees got into trouble they actually refused to hire me on a 1099. When I checked into it I realized they were avoiding the risk of hiring people who were not disciplined enough to withold income.
While you are at it take a look at the history of minimum wage (FLSA) from about 1980 to about 1989 the wage was stuck at $3.35. Are they telling us there was no inflation at that time? This was simply barbaric to people that were not able to adapt that well. Reagan essentiallly built his recovery on the backs of the poor.
The way it is, yes. One of the points is that every decision should not have to be based on taxes and the system CAN be fixed!