English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-06-19 09:31:48 · 6 answers · asked by krzyezzy 1 in Politics & Government Government

6 answers

That depends on who you ask and which model of business you favor.

The Free Enterprise model would say yes. They would say that there should be no regulation at all-- a successful business with a good strategy doesn't need to be regulated and regulation will only hurt. This is great if you are a fan of big business.

However, under that model, with no regulation, things could go very, very badly. For example, Coke and Pepsi, since they are the two biggest soft drink producers and each have control over a larger sector of the market than any of the other companies combined, cannot merge with each other. What would happen if they did? They would have control of nearly all the market, and they could drive smaller companies out of business, because higher production would allow them to sell for a lower price. An unrealistically low price, in fact. Then, once all the other companies have been driven out of business and everyone has stopped trying-- they drive up the prices enormously. You want a cola? You're paying $5-6 dollars or you're not getting one 'cause no one else makes it.

Also, without government regulation, the products sold by any company could be as harmful and dangerous as they want. The arguement against this would be that if you harm your consumers, you're not gonna have any anymore, but this isn't necessarily the case. Doesn't it make you feel better knowing that the FDA is out checking your Aspirin, your spinach, and your ground beef to make sure it isn't going to kill you? Accidents do happen, you know.

Oh, and without government regulation-- if a product DID kill a loved one, or injure someone-- you would have NO legal recourse. Nope, it'd just be kind of a "sucks for you" kinda thing. Not a risk I am willing to take.

2007-06-19 09:46:06 · answer #1 · answered by nicole_b_2003 4 · 2 1

IMO, NO! They under-regulate it! That is the problem with medical, power, energy...they are price gouging the people and the government lets them get away with it! When an operation is tens of THOUSANDS dollars over what the actual cost of an operation is, that is price gouging! You can't really shop around for an open heart surgery can you? Or with what happened in California where they were making fake energy crisis...just to get the prices higher, is BS! Have you seen any more of those crisis in California? No! When you can have the power companies raise rates every other month without any reason and just be ignored while the rates for heating the houses go through the roof, that is just plain wrong and unethical!

2007-06-19 09:35:25 · answer #2 · answered by Fedup Veteran 6 · 1 1

That didn't work in the past. The establishment of the EPA heralded an era of cleaner air, water, land and generally improved environmental conditions for all creatures in the USA. The free market doesn't destroy polluters or environmental abusers. You are blatantly wrong about that. A look at a comparison of environmental conditions pre and post EPA would prove your entire theory wrong.

2016-05-19 23:08:50 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Yes, and so does the state, the county, and the city.

2007-06-19 09:34:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

absolutely.

2007-06-19 10:08:09 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0 0

YES!!!!!!

2007-06-19 09:34:41 · answer #6 · answered by JonB 5 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers