@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;63477 wrote:
1. How about the great ***ing depression, is that a good enough example for you?
2. Not when it requires them to subvert the health and well being of it's workers and customers.
3. Monopolies lead to price manipulation, and if the service they offer is essential then customers are forced to pay whatever cost it is, even at the risk of their own livelihood.
4. It doesn't appear you know very much about the great depression. Worker rights violations occurred frequently during the "laissez faire" economics of the American past.
Also it wasn't uncommon for employers to reject employment to those of different races, creeds, nationality etc.. and because they could always hire new people threatening to quit wouldn't change anything.
1. The great depression was brought on by FDR. Not solved.
The only solution for the great depression was "war". It killed millions but saved millions. FDR was nothing more than a western Joseph Stalin. Minus of course the killing of his own staff. He set aside the constitution for the sake of absolute power. War made that possible and bought him a lot of time.
Regulation does not effect "corporations". It bogs them down. But, they are the only ones that can afford the effect that it produces.
The ones truly hurt by it are up and coming companies. Small business. The true backbone of any nation. Hatred for "corporations" is such a comical thing. Admirable, but stupid as hell.
2. Name a business that ever started out with the goal of adversely effecting workers or customers health and well being............?
3. Can't argue that one. But I still don't see that "regulation" avoids the result of a company being so good at their job that competition fades away.
Making exceptions for less than excellence leads to poor service and products.
4. I have no need to know about the great depression nor the trials and tribulations of the workers of that era.
I believe in treating people with respect. I do not tolerate disrespect from employers to employees. Nor do I tolerate the reverse. I acknowledge the right of an employer to fire whom they wish for whatever reason they wish, so long as those reasons are work related.
I believe employees have a duty to prove on a daily basis their worth to a company that they approached and asked for a job.
Were that employee blessed with intelligence, talent, time management skills, they would likely be the owner of their own company and faced with the decisions of "who" is the best qualified to make this company profitable.
Any other idea of who owes who a living, just because they exist is simply socialist bullshit.