Just because 1 player in a market does it better than anyone else does not mean competition is broken. And there's nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly so long as that monopoly's position is not aided by government.
I don't reject the possibility of an alternative -- I'm a libertarian myself. The reality is the established parties (D and R) will work tirelessly, joined with a compliant media, to marginalize any candidate that isn't one of them. Just look at how CNN has stacked the polling criteria against Gary Johnson, the same criteria used to get into the Presidential debates.
Opening trade with another country will never be a bad thing. Trade only improves the lives of individuals. Now, structuring your tax and regulatory structure to incentivize the out-migration of businesses is a totally different story, but that's not China's fault.
I know that this was said in jest, but it's not that far off from a real solution. Patents and copyrights are gov's way of attempting to introduce scarcity into an area where it wouldn't otherwise exist (ideas). Would people suddenly stop innovating just because someone else might be able to take and expand upon their idea? Would music stop being created or books stop being written just because those authors wouldn't have artificial monopoly on the distribution of their work?
Is there a real, actual justification for the continued existence of copyrights and patents?
I like the concept, but I would look at it from the perspective that everyone's vote is worth "1", but younger people have a multiplier on top to increase their vote's worth. Maybe then politicians wouldn't look so much at only catering to the senior vote.
Let's say I live in MA or NJ and spend the great majority of my commute driving on the local Turnpike. That is essentially a private road to which I'm paying more money to access. Should I still be taxed on mileage driven?
The fact is there's very little chance for a silver bullet to exist and any tax will adjust incentives and therefore behavior.
And what will it take for him to realize that he's not just wrong, but that he's harming the actual stakeholders?
You (incorrectly, IMO), assume that Biden is ignorant and not deliberate in his use of terminology. I would imagine he understands the difference between stakeholder and beneficiary quite well, it's just that he desires to put up a front to the American people that he's doing something to benefit them, when in fact everything he's doing is to harm them (us). Besides, he can get more money from the Content Industry than the American people.