Behind the credit card, ubiquitous in American economic life now for decades, stand a very few gigantic financial institutions that exert nearly unlimited power over how much consumers and businesses pay for the use of a small piece of plastic. American consumers and small businesses alike are spitting fire these days about the cost of credit cards, while the companies profiting from them are making money hand over fist.

We are now having a national conversation about what the federal government can do to lower the cost of credit cards. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), truly strange political bedfellows, have proposed a 10% cap. Now President Trump has too. But we risk spinning our wheels if we do not face facts about the underlying structure of this market.

We should dispense with the notion that the credit card business in the United States is a free market with robust competition. Instead, we have an oligopoly of dominant banks that issue them: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, American Express, Citigroup and Capital One, which together account for about 70% of all transactions. And we have a duopoly of networks: Visa and Mastercard, who process more than 80% of those transactions.

The results are higher prices for consumers who use the cards and businesses that accept them. Possibly the most telling statistic tracks the difference between borrowing benchmarks, such as the prime rate, and what you pay on your credit card. That markup has been rising steadily over the last 10 years and now stands at 16.4%. A Federal Reserve study found the problem in every card category, from your super-duper-triple-platinum card to subprime cardholders. Make no mistake, your bank is cranking up credit card rates faster than any overall increase.

If you are a small business owner, the situation is equally grim. Credit cards are a major source of credit for small businesses, at an increasingly dear cost. Also, businesses suffer from the fees Visa and Mastercard charge merchants on customer payments; those have climbed steadily as well because the two dominant processors use a variety of techniques to keep their grip on that market. Those fees nearly doubled in five years, to $111 billion in 2024. Largely passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, these charges often rank as the second- or third-highest merchant cost, after real estate and labor.

There is nothing divinely ordained here. In other industrialized countries, the simple task of moving money — the basic function of Visa and Mastercard — is much, much less expensive. Consumer credit is likewise less expensive elsewhere in the world because of greater competition, tougher regulation and long-standing norms.

Now some American politicians want caps on card interest rates, a tool that absolutely has its place in consumer protection. A handful of states already have strict limits on interest rates, a proud legacy of an ethos of protecting the most vulnerable people against the biblical sin of usury. Texas imposes a 10% cap for lending to people in that state. Congress in 2006 chose to protect military service members via a 36% limit on interest they can be charged. In 2009, it banned an array of sneaky fees designed to extract more money from card users. Federal credit unions cannot charge more than 18% interest, including on credit cards. Brian Shearer from Vanderbilt University’s Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation has made a persuasive case for capping credit card rates for the rest of us too.

At the very least, there is every reason to ignore the stale serenade of the bank lobby that any regulation will only hurt the people we are trying to help. Credit still flows to soldiers and sailors. Credit unions still issue cards. States with usury caps still have functioning financial systems. And the 2009 law Congress passed convinced even skeptical economists that the result was a better market for consumers.

If consumers receive such commonsense protections, what’s at stake? Profit margins for banks and card networks, and there is no compelling public policy reason to protect those. Major banks have profit margins that exceed 30%, a level that is modest only compared with Visa and Mastercard, which average a margin of 45%. Meanwhile, consumers face $1. 3 trillion in debt. And retailers squeeze by with a margin around 3%; grocers make do with half that.

The market won’t fix what’s wrong with credit card fees, because the handful of businesses that control it are feasting at everyone else’s expense. We must liberate the market from the grip of the major banks and card processors and restore vibrant competition. Harnessing market forces to get better outcomes for consumers, in addition to smart regulation, is as American as apple pie.

Fortunately, Trump has endorsed — via social media — bipartisan legislation, the Credit Card Competition Act, that would crack open the Visa-Mastercard duopoly by allowing merchants to route transactions over competing networks. Here’s hoping he follows through by getting enough congressional Republicans on board.

That change would leave us with the megabanks still controlling the credit card market. One approach would be consumer-friendly regulation of other means of credit, such as buy-now-pay-later tools or innovative payment applications, by including protections that credit cards enjoy. Ideally, Congress would cap the size of banks, something it declined to do after the 2008 financial crisis, to the enduring frustration of reformers who sought structural change. Trump entered the presidency in 2017 calling for a new Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law that broke up big banks, but he never pursued it.

Fast forward nine years, and we find rising negative sentiment among American voters, groaning under the weight of credit card debt and a cascade of junk fees from other industries. Populist ire at corporate power is rising. The race between the two major parties to ride that feeling to victory in the November midterm elections and beyond has begun. A movement to limit the power of big banks could be but a tweet away.

Carter Dougherty is the senior fellow for anti–monopoly and finance at Demand Progress, an advocacy group and think tank.

Lockheed Martin, PG&E Corp., Salesforce and Wells Fargo are teaming up to help firefighters and emergency responders prevent, detect and fight wildfires more quickly.

On Monday, the four companies said they’re forming a new venture called Emberpoint to advance technology while making wildfire prevention more affordable.

“The ultimate vision is, you know, eliminating megafires in the United States, and maybe beyond that,” said Jim Taiclet, Lockheed Martin’s chief executive, president and chairman, in an interview.

The Emberpoint team and its technologies will be created in the coming months and demonstrations are expected some time this year. Wells Fargo is helping to fund the investment and partners have already committed more than $100 million to the new venture, Taiclet said.

Lockheed Martin already makes aircraft and satellites to fight wildfires, but the company has also worked on integrating data from the space, ground and air to help predict where a fire might start so firefighters and helicopters can better position themselves. A lightning strike, downed power lines, improperly extinguished campfires and other events can spark wildfires. The venture’s first service will focus on firefighting intelligence.

PG&E has wildfire mitigation efforts, such as installing power lines underground in high-risk areas, and has weather stations equipped with AI-powered cameras to help detect wildfires. The company will bring its expertise to this new venture but plans to seek regulatory approval to share information with its partners as part of this new venture.

“We can actually share and return to our customers the investments they’ve made in wildfire technology, and return those investments back to customers while making our own system safer and making the state safer,” PG&E Corp. Chief Executive Patti Poppe said.

San Francisco software company Salesforce, which is behind messaging app Slack and a platform that helps companies deploy AI agents, will help organizations coordinate so they can respond to wildfires faster. The company will also help bring data from different streams into a “unified, real-time response engine.”

AI agents can help firefighters better combat a blaze by providing information such as the blaze’s perimeter and the most dangerous areas, Taiclet said.

The partnership comes as wildfires across the globe become larger and more destructive, damaging homes, businesses and other buildings while also disrupting power. In California, where warmer temperatures, drier air and high winds fuel flames, wildfires have caused billions of dollars in damage and claimed lives. Last year, the Eaton and Palisades fires killed more than two dozen people and destroyed more than 16,000 structures, with the estimated loss totaling more than $250 billion.

The path of destruction left by wildfires has prompted major tech companies such as Nvidia and Google, along with startups and universities, to experiment with artificial intelligence to improve firefighting and detection. Drones, sensors, satellite imagery, autonomous aircraft and cameras are among tools used to manage and fight wildfires.

Lockheed Martin has teamed up with tech companies before to help battle wildfires. The defense and aerospace contractor, headquartered in Maryland, also has offices and employees throughout California, including Silicon Valley. It has roughly 10,000 employees in California.

In 2021, the company partnered with Nvidia along with state and federal forest services to create a digital version of a fire that allows firefighters and incident commanders to better understand how it spreads and find the best ways to put it out.

Last year, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection said it was working with Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin company, on a five-year initiative that would enhance autonomous aerial firefighting technologies. The effort also includes exploring the development of an autonomous Sikorsky S-70i Firehawk helicopter, an aircraft used to drop gallons of water onto flames. Sikorsky has worked with California software company Rain to test out autonomous wildfire suppression technology as well.

And Lockheed Martin has built satellites that help U.S. forecasters get images of wildfires, hurricanes and severe weather conditions.

“If we can get prediction better, detection quicker and response more robust, I think we’ve had a real chance at making a big difference here for safety of both the citizens and the firefighters,” Taiclet said.

David Ellison is not abandoning his quest to build a new Hollywood juggernaut.

Ellison-controlled Paramount disclosed Thursday in a regulatory filing that it was extending the deadline of its tender offer for Warner Bros. Discovery stock. The firm had previously asked Warner stockholders to sell their shares to Paramount for $30 apiece by Wednesday.

The new deadline is Feb. 20.

Paramount faces an uphill battle in its pursuit of its larger entertainment industry rival. Investors so far have pledged 168.5 million of Warner’s shares to Paramount, according to Thursday’s filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Warner, in a statement, said the response represented only about 7% of its investors.

Paramount also filed proxy materials, saying it would challenge an alternative bid by Netflix at an upcoming special meeting of Warner shareholders to vote on the company’s sale. Warner’s board has not yet set the meeting date but has suggested the pivotal vote could occur by April — pushing the pitched battle for the company into spring.

Warner’s board unanimously agreed on Dec. 4 to sell much of the company to Netflix for $27.75 a share. Before that can happen, Warner must spin off CNN and other basic cable channels into a new publicly traded company called Discovery Global.

The multistep process is giving Paramount a wide window to make its case to Warner shareholders.

Warner Bros. Discovery, in a statement, was dismissive of Paramount’s efforts.

“Once again, Paramount continues to make the same offer our Board has repeatedly and unanimously rejected in favor of a superior merger agreement with Netflix,” Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement. “It’s also clear our shareholders agree, with more than 93% also rejecting Paramount’s inferior scheme. We are confident in our ability to achieve regulatory approval for the Netflix merger.”

Paramount has sued Warner Bros. and its chief executive, David Zaslav, in a Delaware court, but the judge turned down Paramount’s request to expedite the legal proceedings to help Paramount make its case to Warner shareholders.

Paramount hopes that, over time, the proxy battle will be more fruitful. It plans to ask Warner shareholders to vote against the Netflix deal at the special meeting. Paramount has also said it would put forth its own slate of directors to be elected during Warner’s annual meeting with shareholders.

“The consideration payable to WBD shareholders in the Netflix transaction falls well short of Paramount’s $30 per share all-cash offer,” Paramount said in Thursday’s announcement.

Billionaire Larry Ellison and his family took control of Paramount in August, determined to become major players in Hollywood.

The following month, the Ellisons began an audacious pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery. Their goal is to combine two century-old film studios and vibrant television production capabilities and marry such popular TV networks as HBO, CBS, Comedy Central, HGTV and TBS.

Netflix was the surprise suitor after Warner opened the auction to other bidders in late October.

Paramount launched its hostile takeover last month after failing to gain traction with Warner’s board, which remains steadfast in its support for Netflix’s $72-billion proposed purchase of HBO, HBO Max, television production and the Warner Bros. film studio, which led the Hollywood pack in the prestigious Oscar nominations, which were announced Thursday.

Earlier this week, Netflix converted its $27.75-a-share bid to an all-cash offer in hopes of defusing some of Paramount’s criticisms of its deal.

Paramount, which enjoys support from President Trump, has been stressing that Netflix’s regulatory path is uncertain.

Both sides plan to make their case to U.S. and European regulators.

Unlike Netflix, Paramount wants to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, including CNN and other basic cable channels. The value of the proposed cable channel company, Discovery Global, factors into the ultimate value that shareholders would receive if the Netflix bid prevails.

Warner’s cable channel spin-off is expected to be completed this summer. The value of the channels is in doubt, giving Paramount ammunition to claim that its $30-a-share tender offer for the entire company was more lucrative than Netflix’s offer for Warner’s studios and HBO.