Entirely not the point. We know that monopolies and wealth _concentration_ reinforce each other, at the cost of wealth creation.
Every time a monopoly buys a company, a chance of competition gets eliminated. As monopolist have enough money to buy the government by regulatory capture or even state capture, competition cannot grow, stifling innovation and growth. Parasitism is the most apt way to understand, because the host will wither away from it.
I agree we should be busting more monopolies in the vein of Teddy Roosevelt, but you are forgetting the monopolies and capture political parties have on the states themselves.
I know its a hot issue and I apologize, but if you look at Minnesota with its likely fraud: would their social welfare program numbers look better without the fraud? Could California be run better without its (also likely) welfare fraud? You might really want this but the leadership doesn't want to root it out. So you're left with voting for the opposition but how many want to do that? Nothing happens.
There's no competition in politics. It's two parties or nothing right now.
There's Californian billionaires who loudly hate the Government but can't get anything to change. I feel you are overestimating wealth's influence too some degree as well.
Entirely not the point. We know that monopolies and wealth _concentration_ reinforce each other, at the cost of wealth creation.
Every time a monopoly buys a company, a chance of competition gets eliminated. As monopolist have enough money to buy the government by regulatory capture or even state capture, competition cannot grow, stifling innovation and growth. Parasitism is the most apt way to understand, because the host will wither away from it.