Step 1: All companies with the same product or purpose unify. - Have all banks join together and operate a single bank for the country. Have all medical firms join together and operate a single medicine development group for the country. Etc. This reduces the division of money; if there are 100 million people in a country, and one company makes a product, they can sell 100 million of that product at $5 each making $500,000,000 maximum. If a second company makes a product for the exact same purpose that is no better or worse, they have the same investment cost (machinery, energy, resources, etc) as the original company as they still need to be able to produce 100 million of the product, in the event their product is more popular. This reduces the potential income per company to $250,000,000 and also increases costs through competing between each other, so that $250,000,000 is actually further reduced. Step 2: Place a federal profit limit of 100% for businesses. -If you spend $1m you can take in $2m. If you give 5% interest on money in the bank, you can charge 10% on interest for lent money(loans or credit cards). This keeps a balance between the money available to take from the people and the money being earned by companies. This has a side effect of preventing the risk of a "monopoly" created by the "one company" move of Step 1. Bonus effect: Since companies are limited to 100% profit, there is less risk. Steady profit means less failure. Less failure means more tax revenue from companies. As companies are not draining money from the populace, it also means more tax revenue from the people. Bonuses to a CEO or other such executive do not count as money spent going out into the system. However, investment in new technology which improves overall benefit of the country DOES count as money going out as the people have the reduced costs which would result as well. I'm as much for free market as everyone else, and if a company can't survive on a 100% profit margin, they really need to be doing something different rather than clinging to the same ideal. The market is still free, as companies can still do whatever they want, but instead of rushing everything forward to make more money faster, you limit profits so that companies make the same money over a longer time and have less chance of failure. Half of any excess profit over the 100% profit limit goes to research and development of new technology which improves overall operation(recycling, energy, agriculture, etc) and the remaining 50% is allowed to be kept by the company since after the half goes to research, they are no longer violating the limitation. Regardless of opinions of which system it breaks or which ideal it breaks, it cannot be denied that it would be effective at fixing the economy.