the US performs great when there's no competition

As we know the markets are bastions of corruption, where US banks
are amongst the leaders. Competition has been squeezed out of the market
by anti-competitive activities such as government-sanctioned fraud (see below).
If there were true capitalism and punishment for crime, the banks'd be broke.

Well, that's the natural outgrowth of lawlessness brought on by
globalisation and free flow of capital. Du-uh. winning.
Opening up markets was a lie perpetrated by bought politicians
to help their rich benefactors. Now, every country is in
Palookaville, putting out financial fires left and right.

Ha Joon Chang taught us that the actual growth that happened in
the US before the Reagan years was largely due to protected markets.

[you could get a degree in Economics just by watching his videos on YuTb]
They controlled incoming trade through tariffs and other barriers as did almost
every other country. Makes sense that you would protect your markets
because as a politician, you want the best for your country.
You don't want globalisation if it means economic hitmen are gonna
come knocking on your door every other day.
Nor will you appreciate the death threats , the IMF and WB.
You'll hate it when you're running from assassins.
And your public will hate it when they're enslaved and stealing rainwater
because they can't afford to pay for piped water.

So, globalisation is a scam. International flows of money are a scam,
or enable scams, like the ones we're seeing.

So, when all these rich Western countries' economies collapse, and they pick up
the pieces, if they have any sanity and freedom of action, they'll start
protecting their markets and looking after domestic needs. If they need a few
computers or disposable toys, then they'll call up the Chinese, and not until
that time.

[THE BENEFIT OF PROTECTIVE BARRIERS. TIGER=IMF/WB/US-UK banks]
Transcript:

"you know what would happen?"
"shredded duck",
"and we're not even in Chinatown"

It's like a family. If they can sew a button, they don't need to buy a new shirt.
Why force them to go outside the confines of their home and spend
what little money they have to buy a new shirt?

For a slightly wonky explanation of US economic history, see this from Zerohedge:

Perhaps nobody does a better job to explain said futility than Bill Buckler in his latest edition of The Privateer, which we urge everyone, and most certainly the POTUS who just requested more fiscal stimulus, to read in order to take a step back from theoretical, and wrong, textbook formulations and to see the stimulus forest for the burning trees.

Putting The Cart On Top Of The Horse:
For a human lifetime, since the 1930s in the US and across the developed world, the health and “growth” of an economy has been “measured” by how much has been consumed. Part of this consumption, it is true, is the natural result of prior production. But over the decades, an increasing proportion of it has been done by means of borrowed money. Worse still, the calculations of economic “growth” have included consumption by government. Government, by its nature, produces NOTHING. Any government, even one which is limited to protecting life and property and issues no debt whatsoever, is a cost on the economy. The fact that this cost is necessary does not negate the fact that it is a cost.
It is one thing to measure this cost in terms of money. It is another thing entirely to measure it in terms of the real wealth which has been consumed by government. The ONLY way to increase the wealth of an individual or a nation of individuals is to produce MORE than is consumed. The difference - which is SAVINGS - can then be used to produce more real wealth with more efficient means and thus less real effort. This is the only way that an economy can genuinely “grow”. This is what transformed the US from an all but untouched potential into a continent-girdling economic powerhouse. It was not done by means of currency manipulation. It was not done by means of government borrowing. It was not done by all encompassing rules and regulations. It was done by means of political AND economic freedom.[AND DON'T FORGET PROTECTED MARKETS- Costick67]

criminal activity by any other name would still stink.
if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's fraud.
checkitout:
from 24gold
Watch How They Steal The Money
by Nathan Lewis - New World Economics
... The "bailout" is not just a way to add more new debt, it is a way to roll over existing debt that matures. Every month that passes, a little more Greek debt matures. The bankers get paid back €1.00 instead of having their debt default, as it certainly would have if not for various "bailouts." Greece's government owes just as much money, but now it owes the money to, essentially, German taxpayers rather than bankers. So who takes the loss when Greece later defaults? Why, German taxpayers! Who didn't even own the stuff until a little while ago. The same applies for Portugal, and now Italy and Spain.
... I think it is funny that people then get upset about "bankers' bonuses." As if that mattered, when crime of this magnitude is happening in front of your eyes. "You killed my mother and my brother and my sister, so I think you should wear less expensive shoes." This is the talk of slaves.
...
Asset Sales: Once you've corrupted governments to this degree, you might as well go whole hog. Sovereign debt, for the most part, is unsecured. If it defaults, the lender has no recourse. So why is Greece's government being forced into "asset sales"? Because, when you've already got them bent over, you don't just stop halfway. When you get mugged in an alley, does the mugger only take half your money?
...