...must be 'make or break' on it's core business only ...more competition, more opportunity for everyone to join in this robust economy [lol], less corp influence in Washington, less damage to economy if one goes down, no scam corps to shield taxes, more stability in the business world [since a stand-alone would not be subject to acquisition /merger/consolidation], no more corp asset-stripping, no more running in the red & getting away with it by offsetting the loss against a money-making subsidiary--hurting competition, etc. Please, from a PRACTICAL, nationwide angle, how is this proposal bad?
2007-01-25
13:16:12
·
1 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Social Science
➔ Economics