Do you just make sh1t up as you go along?
50% government employed or paid feed off the 50% employed by the market. And you think the 1% of the rich of the 50% of the working feed off society,..
Do government employees not pay the same taxes as you do? Do government employees not work as many hours as you do?
Private companies hire people that are educated by public school teachers. They run their business in buildings protected from fire and crime by government employees. Your country's borders are protected from enemies by government employees. The science behind much of the technologies that you benefit from and exploit were discovered by government employees.
Stop leeching off the hard work of government employees without giving them any credit for some the luxuries of life that you enjoy.
correct, but you have to be very carefull with this one. Environmental regulations are a slippery slope. Usually they are not needed, because when people get richer and live longer they want a clean environment. Government regulation is often reactive, while market driven change is proactive.
Who died and let you decide if regulations are not needed? I would suggest using the words "I think" when you make statements like this.
wrong. Either your spouse accepts they increased pay for working in a dangerous environment or she finds another job.
Who says that the pay is higher? Who says that the company would even make her aware of the work environment being dangerous?
"Don't worry. Those chemicals have never caused cancer in anyone before. You don't need to wear a mask. Just go right ahead and breathe that sh1t in. It's not going to hurt you."
Just go on believing that no regulations are needed until you or one of your loved ones is the one hurt. Let's see how quickly you change your tune.
In my country, those that loudly complain about so many people being on unemployment shut up really fast and queue up for their own unemployment check the second they lose their jobs.
No, the fisherman need to sue the drilling company for loss of income. If the government intervines they get zip.
Sue for loss of income? Gee, why didn't GM just sue Toyota for loss of income? Brilliant!
Where did I say I am opposed? I'm against government protection of companies and employees. I'm not against ALL government regulations. I've explained this on numerous occasions.
When you say "50% government employed or paid feed off the 50% employed by the market", it sounds like you're complaining about the mere existence of government employees. In your little utopia, who'd be around to even write these few regulations that you allegedly support?
To big too fail means that the risk is too great to bear, considering the rewards.
People do have that power over banks, but banks have a larger power over the people. They can take all kinds of risky positions, reap the profits and divert the losses to the tax payer.
So risk being "too great to bear" trumps your absolute requirement that it needs to be "dealings of two parties that affect another". In the case of banks being "too big to fail", all the parties involved are intertwined. There aren't just "two parties affecting another." They're all parties affecting each other.
I think the risk of millions of workers being hurt because of no safety regulations is "too great to bear".
I think the risk of AGW's adverse effect on the Earth is "too great to bear".
I think the risk of petroleum companies destroying the marine ecosystem through spills from offshore drilling is "too great to bear". And the fish aren't capable of suing Exxon for loss of their homes.
See? You're not the only who gets to decide what risk is "too great to bear".
I for one am a big fan of the Icelandic system. The citizens voted no against a bailout of Landsbanki, and after a couple of years, Icelandic economy is growing again. Look at the rest of us here, we've spent a couple of trillion dollars, Greece is still about to leave the Euro, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are on the virge of collapse. All that government spending has brought us nothing but larger debt and a longer recession. And that's a fact.
The difference is that Landsbanki wasn't too big to fail.