But suppose, for the sake of argument, free competition, without any sort of monopoly, would develop capitalism trade more rapidly. Is it not a fact that the more rapidly trade and capitalism develop, the greater is the concentration of production and capital which gives rise to monopoly?
I am convinced that both markets and free trade are good, but the traditional answer that we give to students to explain why they are good, the one based on perfect competition and Pareto optimality, is becoming untenable. Something much more interesting and more complicated is going on here
I ain't racist but lets trade places.
Hillary Clinton's position on policy on markets and trade is very plain, which is we'll do trade deals but only if they meet three criteria, increase American jobs and wages and are they good for national security. If they are and if we can enforce them, then trade deals are okay. If not, we can't embrace them.
For a man who loves power, competition from the gods is annoying. I have done away with that. I have proven to these illusory godsthat a man, if he has the will, can practice, without any apprenticeship, their ridiculous trade.