Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
For the conservatives who believe that a free market will do a better job of curing economic ills than regulations, I have a question. Do companies who agree not to compete, or who merge smaller competitors into ever larger corporations, advance or detract from a properly functioning economy?
Regards,
D-Ray
|
Like Teddy (
), I am firmly anti-trust. Trusts and monopolies are NOT free market.
This segues into the Federal government too, vis-a-vis State and local gov'ts (if I ever say vis-a-vis again please shoot me). The Fed is the ultimate monopoly, with the added terror of force of law. That terror the Founders understood well.
The gov't should act like a referee, not a player. Like refs it is extremely important that they don't pick winners or losers.
Like giving a local company $700,000+ for new equipment. Which they just did with stimulus money. It's trickling down I guess.
Is that it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie
Sorry, didn't realize I wrote another one of my books...
|
Write away, Eddie!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles
I suppose I should respond, since I've been call out by name. I'm not really up to this as I didn't get much sleep last night and feel like shit...but here goes.
There should be some regulation concerning monopolies, unethical business practices, etc. Then again, the government is just as effective at creating regulations which make the situation worse as the are at making the situation better.
I'm in favor of good and effective regulations on big business. But anytime they decide to quit forcing me to wear a seatbelt, quit trying to screw me with cap and trade, quit refusing to let me take a junk water water heater to the dump because it is hazardous waste, quit requiring that I get certified in lead abatement, etc, etc, etc, would suit me just fine.
Effective regulations on the government are at least as necessary as effective regulations on the multinationals.
Clear as mud?
Chas
|
Indeed!
Pete