That is true, but is it worth the loss of consumer protections?Another way to keep more money in house. Less lawsuits, less lawyer fees.
WHOA! That's a bit of a leap.It will promote plan B, violence.
WHOA! That's a bit of a leap.
WHAT?!?!!? I can't sue Company X for making a bad hip implant which has affected 1000s of people? FUCK IT! TIME TO RIOT AND KILL INDISCRIMINATELY!
Oh...but still, you are one voice, and all the others who follow (or came before) will have no knowledge of this. This definitely puts the asymmetric information advantage back into the hands of vendors, without (great) concern for consequences.No, no, no,....Guy sold me a lemon, now all the cars on his lot suck..........
It's not worth the loss, but IMHO, corporations have only cared about their bottom lines since day one, although without us, they'll fail. It's only getting worse as time goes on. They'll never care about us cause they believe we need them. If consumers stop spending at there stores, it would hit the big boys in the pocket which is the only way to get them to change.That is true, but is it worth the loss of consumer protections?
It's like cutting off someone's head to treat acne.
This isn't really about stores, though. It's about mega-corps, like pharmaceutical giants for example, being able to throw out whatever wonder-product they've cooked up, without concern about mass repercussions in the event their product kills or injures.It's not worth the loss, but IMHO, corporations have only cared about their bottom lines since day one, although without us, they'll fail. It's only getting worse as time goes on. They'll never care about us cause they believe we need them. If consumers stop spending at there stores, it would hit the big boys in the pocket which is the only way to get them to change.
One thing that was mentioned I wouldve presumed was present already, the requirement that all members of a class can prove they suffered damages.This isn't really about stores, though. It's about mega-corps, like pharmaceutical giants for example, being able to throw out whatever wonder-product they've cooked up, without concern about mass repercussions in the event their product kills or injures.
Each case would have to be filed individually, making it nearly impossible to go after the big pockets. It completely distorts the "playing field," as it were.
This isn't really about stores, though. It's about mega-corps, like pharmaceutical giants for example, being able to throw out whatever wonder-product they've cooked up, without concern about mass repercussions in the event their product kills or injures.
Each case would have to be filed individually, making it nearly impossible to go after the big pockets. It completely distorts the "playing field," as it were.
I wish your ideas would work but theyre fundamentally flawed.You shouldn't be surprised that this is happening. It's what happens when competition is eliminated or constrained, by design.
It wouldn't happen in a truly free market. Why? Absent the monopoly of government provided "justice" there would be competing arbitration methods. Also absent a monopolistic government there would not even be a corporate construct which is really just a scam to transfer wealth to cronies.
Ironic that a corporation is designed to shield individuals too. If only individuals are allowed to sue, wouldn't it make sense that the defendants are examined as individuals too, rather than a corporate wall of diversion?
Could you describe which flaws exist and how the present paradigm addresses those flaws you claim exist?I wish your ideas would work but theyre fundamentally flawed.
Sorry dude, can't happen.
Agreed. It's another sign of the growing power of corporate fascism in America.This isn't really about stores, though. It's about mega-corps, like pharmaceutical giants for example, being able to throw out whatever wonder-product they've cooked up, without concern about mass repercussions in the event their product kills or injures.
Each case would have to be filed individually, making it nearly impossible to go after the big pockets. It completely distorts the "playing field," as it were.
Human nature bro, it cant work cos we're still human.Could you describe which flaws exist and how the present paradigm addresses those flaws you claim exist?
That is just dumb.It wouldn't happen in a truly free market. Why? Absent the monopoly of government provided "justice" there would be competing arbitration methods. Also absent a monopolistic government there would not even be a corporate construct which is really just a scam to transfer wealth to cronies.
It wouldn't do any good because you refuse to actually go over any details.Could you describe which flaws exist and how the present paradigm addresses those flaws you claim exist?