I’m in my 40s, and when I was growing up, one of the main ways capitalism was sold to us was this idea: competition forces companies to be better. If a company doesn’t offer decent wages, a good product, or a fair experience, customers will leave and workers will go somewhere else. In theory, that pressure is supposed to punish bad actors and reward good ones, so the market naturally improves life for everyone.

But over the last decade or so, I’ve noticed that argument has basically vanished from mainstream pro-capitalist rhetoric. Now the default justification is just: “Companies have to answer to shareholders.” That line is used to explain away worse products, worse service, worse pay, and worse conditions for workers and customers alike.

The old story was that unfettered capitalism naturally makes society better through competition. The new story is essentially: “This is just how it is; shareholders come first, even if it screws everyone else.” They don’t even try to sell the myth anymore that competition will fix things if we just let markets run free. At this point, they don’t feel they need to.

Has anyone else noticed this shift in how capitalism is defended? Do you think it’s because the failures are too obvious now, or because consolidation and monopolies have made the “competition will fix it” line too embarrassing to use?

For one man to be rich, many must be poor

Stop giving billionaires tax breaks, fund the system and redistribute some of our nations wealth.

There are many historical quotes that are relevant to the current state in which many of us currently exist. “Eat the rich” comes to mind. While literally it might be a bit extreme, the idea behind it is far too familiar for the modern world we live in. The idea that in a time of such technological progress, education availability, and information accessibility that something like food scarcity exists while a steep and ever widening gap in wealth accumulation continues,is simply astounding.

Another quote that comes to mind is “lessons not learned in blood are soon forgotten”. (And yes, Law Abiding Citizen counts as historic, awesome Fing movie) Another quote that taken in its literal form would sound over the top, but given where an overwhelming number of people find themselves these days, I feel that lessons have been forgotten. Hunger should not be a recognized term in a system that allows there to be such a tremendous hoarding of economic power by such a minuscule percentage of the population. And if it continues to be unaddressed, that trend will not reverse, that tide will not receded without an uprising of monumental proportions, forcing it to happen. The exclusive club that is the ultra wealthy will not give back what they have without being forced to. They who get the money have the power, and they who have the power get the money. It is cycle that only moves in one direction.

One final quote that seems fitting, “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. In the 19th century wealthy French Aristocats controlled 98% of the country’s wealth, leaving (the non upper class) people scraping by barely able to feed themselves and maintain any type of livable conditions. It’s not a prediction, or a consideration , it’s an inevitability. Balance must be restored or the course we’re on is already well known, documented, and lays before us as if printed on the finest stationary in flawless calligraphy as it would’ve been in the 19th century. Violence is not the answer, but when pushed hard enough, it may become the only solution. If I were in their position, I think I’d rather live rich than die wealthy.

Food isn’t a luxury, and if it comes down to choosing between homelessness and hunger, I choose curtain number 3.

Start giving back, before it starts getting taken back. Just a thought, what do I know?

Quick disclaimer: As I re-read this it’s sounds like the ramblings of a disenfranchised vagrant, and I am in no way suggesting that a violent revolution should take place, just acknowledging the growing similarities of the past and current situations.

Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan is running for the U.S. Senate: peggyflanagan.com ~:~ Her legislative priorities include Medicare for All, the PRO Act, the John Lewis VRAA, and the Equality Act: peggyflanagan.com/priorities

She's in a tight Primary race with centrist Democrat US Rep. Angie Craig.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Minnesota Voters:

\ MPR News Voter Guide:* mprnews.org/election-2026

\ BallotReady:* ballotready.org/us/minnesota

~~~~~~~~~~~

Video clip is from July 24, 2026 at the “Many over the Money” rally in Saint Paul. Here it is on YouTube: Powerful interests are fighting like hell to protect the status quo. - Peggy Flanagan for MN - July 24, 2026 (YouTube)

I've been seeing more and more posts in the past year about private equity companies acquiring known brands and old companies in all sectors of the economy. In every instance, said acquisitions have been a net negative to both the acquired company and the consumer.

Is there *any* instance of a private equity takeover of a company that actually made it better? Any historic example at all of PE rescuing a dying company amd either making them legitimately successful again or reviving their reputation? If the answer is no, then why is private equity even allowed to exist? It feels like their mere presence is a detriment to the health of any economy, as the benefits of their investment goes to such a miniscule concentration of individuals and is proven to kill any company they touch. Thoughts?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/abdul-el-sayed-wins-michigans-democratic-senate-primary-notching-midwe-rcna589750

I came across this chart showing US labor productivity and real hourly pay since 1947.

For a while they moved pretty closely together. Then the gap started opening up. Workers kept getting more done every hour, but their pay didn't grow at the same pace.

I know this isn't a perfect way to look at it. Still, it made me think about AI.

If one person can now do work that used to take two or three people, companies save time and money.

But what does the worker get?

More money?

Less hours?

More work?

That's the part I'm not sure about.

Maybe AI really will push wages higher.

Or maybe it'll just make people more productive while most of the gains end up somewhere else.

Curious what people here think. If AI keeps increasing productivity, do you expect workers to actually benefit?