Originally Posted by MaxFly
I don't think this is worse than your responses in regards to the grocery debate, but it's close. I can tell, simply based on what you posted here, that you had to google Rockefeller. It's certainly obvious you know nothing about Standard Oil or their corrupt and monopolistic business practices... or the fact that they were broken up as a result. If you have a problem even acknowledging that the Standard Oils of the world can actually be a problem for innovation and efficiency, this is a waste of time.
I will acknowledge that I think we should have some gov't oversight. We certainly need gov't to protect individuals from thieves. Your two examples were Wells Fargo, who repeatedly stole money from people by charging them fees for no reason, and Everest College, which provided a terrible education at a super high cost, while advertising to the most vulnerable people watching daytime television. I took a lot of time to respond to the Everest College example, but I don't remember you even responding to what I said about it.
I'm sure there are plenty of better examples out there for why gov't oversight is a good thing. You don't need to post them; I agree with you.
I'm on the side that thinks we currently have too much regulation. Not only do I work with it on a daily basis, but I live with it too. Regulations are frequently put in place to not protect consumers, but to increase funds to gov't entities. Prices are higher and wait times are longer because of regulations. They often change work behaviors that are detrimental to consumers. Cancer warnings are now required to be served up with coffee in California. Come on.
When you've got a system where special interests are writing the laws and new programs, then you're going to get regulation and programs that disproportionately benefit corporations who helped write it.