Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Corporate black holes prevent fair play in the U.S. economy

Mobile phone listing Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple and Microsoft

Like black holes, the largest companies have a reach seemingly exceeds human capabilities, writes Frazier.

SOPA Images/Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

NASA defines a black hole as “a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not get out.” This celestial abnormality can even distort space-time. Though invisible to the human eye, a black hole is detectable by the extent to which everything around it is morphed to its will.

The same is true of our biggest corporations. The total reach of companies like Amazon, Meta and Google seemingly exceeds human capabilities. Yet, the extent to which our laws, culture and daily lives revolve around these corporate black holes reveals a hard truth: Fair play does not characterize our economy. The best ideas may never come to fruition and the smartest people may never realize their potential — they lack the escape velocity necessary to operate beyond the pull of the black holes.


Affording every individual economic opportunity and liberty is at the core of our antitrust tradition. It’s the idea that motivated Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson to reorient our approach to goliath corporations. They realized that when some companies have an unearned advantage over others, there’s a need to help level the playing field. Roosevelt used publicity to call out CEOs who wanted to flout the rules. Taft leaned on the courts to enforce existing laws. Wilson created the Federal Trade Commission to spot new corporate shenanigans.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Each president thought creatively about how best to curtail corrupt, fraudulent and just plain bad business practices. They succeeded … sometimes. They also fell short … a lot. Teddy couldn’t help but assume that his fellow gentlemen would only do right by the American people. His predecessors likewise paid close attention to the interests and demands of the elite class that bankrolled their campaigns and demanded passes from too much regulatory scrutiny.

Those shortcomings shouldn’t distract from the larger message: They each acknowledged that fair play was more important than unjust economic growth.

Fair play is missing from today’s economy. Consumers are trapped in the orbits of a few massive corporations. You can quit Facebook, but your friends will demand you join WhatsApp or Instagram. Your social media still resolves around Meta.

Startups are likewise roped into these economic black holes. Companies like Amazon will extract everything from novel threats. They’ll lure employees from small businesses, or emulate the products of mom-and-pop shops. And, if necessary, they will simply absorb their competition via an acquisition.

The long-term ramifications of giant corporate black holes are significant. Consolidation across several industries has had a particularly pronounced effect on workers and their wages. Leading antitrust scholars forecast that Americans could be earning upwards of $10,000 more in annual income under more competitive conditions. Competition would not only boost incomes but also stretch dollars further. As companies bunch together they also tend to jack up prices. Americans may also have more career opportunities in a more competitive economy. The dominant corporations in their respective industries generally hire fewer workers — driving down total employment.

The laws of anti-competitive gravitational forces under which corporate black holes trap us in their orbit may finally be coming to an end. Like Copernicus realizing the sun’s pull, federal officials have awoken to the democracy-sapping effects of corporate black holes. FTC Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, for one, acknowledged that “society reaps the benefits of free enterprise only if it protects the system from monopolies and fraud.” His colleague, Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, has similarly called for the public interest rather than private profit to be at the center of our economic policies.

This emerging consensus justifies optimism but begs the question: How can individual Americans achieve the escape velocity necessary to wrest control over their economic fates from the biggest corporations? A full outline of those policy options exceeds the scope of this short essay. For now, the most important thing is realizing that our economy does not have to revolve around the priorities of corporate black holes. This Copernicus Revolution can serve as the basis for rewriting our collective narrative and understanding of what fair play means in the modern economy.

Read More

Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Figurines of manual workers with stacks of coins

Getty Images/Glow Images

Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Among the international trade issues making headlines is President Trump’s recent announcement to abandon current U.S. law regarding small, low-value packages containing products purchased by Americans from overseas. The initial Executive Order was paused just days later. But the threat remains, making damaging economic repercussions imminent.

The process for such small-dollar shipments is de minimis entry. The term means “pertaining to tiny or trivial things,” emphasizing why its usage only applies to goods under a lower-priced threshold.

Keep ReadingShow less
Dictionary definition of tariff
Would replacing the income tax with higher tariffs help ‘struggling Americans’?
Devonyu/Getty Images

Could Trump’s tariffs have unintended consequences that hurt America?

The first few weeks of the Trump administration have been head-spinning. President Trump and his team were well-prepared to launch their policy agenda, signing over 50 executive orders, the most in a president's first month in more than 40 years. A major focus has been economic policy, first with immigration raids, which were quickly followed by announcements of tariffs on imports from America’s biggest trade partners.

The tariff announcements have followed a meandering and confusing course. President Trump announced the first tariffs on February 1, but within 24 hours, he suspended the tariffs on Mexico and Canada in favor of “negotiations.” Mexico and Canada agreed to enforce their borders better to stop migrants and fentanyl imports, which the Trump administration called a victory. Despite the triumphalist rhetoric, the enforcement measures were substantially the same as what both countries were already planning to do.

Keep ReadingShow less
Elon Musk's X Factor Won’t Fix Big Government

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk speaks with former president Donald Trump during a campaign event at the Butler Farm Show, Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024, in Butler, Pa.

Getty Images, The Washington Post

Elon Musk's X Factor Won’t Fix Big Government

Elon Musk’s reputation as a disruptor, transforming industries like automobiles and space travel with Tesla and SpaceX, will be severely tested as he turns his attention to government reform through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). DOGE lacks official agency status and depends on volunteers, raising concerns about its credibility. Musk claims his team of young techies can slash federal spending by $2 trillion, but history casts serious doubt on private-sector fixes for big government. So far, he has largely avoided legal scrutiny with the GOP-led Congress’ help, while handing sensitive operations to his team of “experts.” What could possibly go wrong?

Musk’s plan involves embedding these techies in federal agencies to find inefficiencies. His confidence comes from past successes, such as cost-cutting at X (formerly Twitter) through drastic measures like layoffs. There’s no denying that private-sector innovation has improved government services before—cloud computing, AI-driven fraud detection, and streamlined procurement have saved billions. But running a government isn’t like running a business. It’s not just about efficiency or profit—it’s about providing essential services, enforcing laws, and balancing competing interests to ensure a measure of fairness.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill: The Ascendancy of Indian Americans

The flag of India.

Canva Images

From Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill: The Ascendancy of Indian Americans

In the intricate landscape of global geopolitics, the ascendancy of Indian Americans stands as a quiet yet transformative force—a phenomenon that demands serious consideration. While traditional paradigms of power focus on military might or economic clout, the strategic leverage wielded by this diaspora is rewriting the rules of global influence. India’s economic trajectory reflects its ambitions on the global stage. Contributing 4% to global GDP today, the nation is poised to become the world’s third $10 trillion economy within two decades. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts India will account for 18% of total global growth by decade’s end, a rise that challenges established economic hierarchies.

Trade data between India and the United States reflects the growing interdependence: In 2020, U.S. imports to India stood at $51.3 billion. This figure grew to $80.1 billion in 2024, alongside a trade deficit swelling from $24.2 billion to $41.5 billion. This trade expansion is mirrored by Indian-American professionals dominating key sectors of the U.S. economy. With a median household income of $119,000, Indian Americans outperform national averages and hold influential roles across corporate and governmental institutions. CEOs of global giants like Microsoft, Google, and Citibank exemplify this trend, along with leadership roles in companies like Apple, Intel, and Dell.

Keep ReadingShow less