How does deregulation mean more economic freedom for everyone?

Tax credits can be designed to spur investment in equipment and technology.

Milton Friedman opposed the Equal Rights Amendment because it took away women's economic freedom to work for less money than a man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE

I'm not sure if I ever believed that women actually do the same work as men for
less pay; no one would hire a man if this was the case. Why not hire all women, pay
them 70% of what a man earns(some women claimed they get paid "$.70 for every $1 a man was paid) and pocket the difference?

Still, for someone who so praised the "creative destruction" that resulted from free markets,
he had no problem accepting tenure. Maybe he should have let his students decide if he was good-enough to remain as a professor.

It has been my observation in twenty years in a very competitive business that profit is not the main priority of business. Maintaining the social hierarchy is more important.

Good one about the tenure. Free market for you, protection for me.

It has been my observation in twenty years in a very competitive business that profit is not the main priority of business. Maintaining the social hierarchy is more important.

Good one about the tenure. Free market for you, protection for me.

I think the best idea is to have different institutions: family, government, the market,army, etc. serve as checks-and-balances on each other's power, to prevent any one institution from gaining too much power.

No question: Any single entrenched all powerful hierarchy of elites collects billions for themselves and their chosen allies....Saddam Hussein, Kim Jung Un, Hugo Chavez, the Chinese communist party elites......Hitler, Stalin, Musssoli of an earlier era lived pretty well,too. Just look at the way US political parties reward their supporters and allies...Obama is a master of that if not much else. But by international standards of theft, he's just a lowly also ran.

Wanna see the effects of 'regulation'??...follow the plight of Obamacare [the Affordable Care Act] and watch it flounder, especially the state pools which are already delayed.....

The US does somewhat better because power is spread among states, courts, feds and local governments via what is left of the Constitution. So Scott Walker in Wisconsin gets to do what he does [balance the budget] and mayors in Stockton, Detroit, Oakland, Pittsburgh,New Orleans, Baltimore,etc run their cities into bankruptcy.

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?

Only reluctantly did the CAB give up the concept that, in any of these charter fares, each charter passenger had to pay an equal share of the full cost of the charter, instead of a fixed price for his ticket. Thus, if someone canceled at the last minuted and the carrier had not already received that passenger's money or couldn't find a replacement, the fare for everybody else on the charter went up! That is a good example of how excessive regulation had been crippling the air carriers in the marketplace.

The second and third factors prompting deregulation are two different types of "Entry".

First there was the difficulty—read inability—to get into the trunk airline business at all. I have already mentioned that the CAB did not admit any new trunk carrier after 1938. To be sure, by 1975, there were eight regional service carriers, some quite large (e.g., Frontier), and there were ten supplementals, a few intrastate carriers in Texas and California, and air taxis. But when, for example, World Airways, a charter airline, applied in 1967 to fly a scheduled service between New York and Los Angeles at low prices, the CAB "studied" the matter for six and a half years and then dismissed the application because the record was "stale".

Secondly, even if you were a member of the club there was the difficulty—read forget it—to obtain CAB approval for a new route. At the same time, under CAB regulation an air carrier that wanted to deploy its assets more efficiently would have difficulty obtaining CAB authority to abandon a route. It was the same problem that the railroads had with the ICC. As an example of the difficulty of securing approval of a new route, Continental had to wait eight years to add San Diego/Denver to its system, and finally succeeded only because a U.S. Court of Appeals told the CAB to grant the authority.

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?

It is just that I have never seen any study that support that claim,meaning the claim that women are paid less _for the same work_--and I have asked for it. There are also women demographics who do better economically than their respective male demographics, but women do not mention that, nor do they seem bothered by the fact that they do better than man in many areas (lower rate of inprisonment,of deaths on the job, lower highschool dropout rate). Just like you don't see any questioning of capitalism on the hard right ( with Fox as its mouthpiece) , you don't see any questioning of feminism on the hard left ( MSNBC). It is the same in both: cherry-picking the evidence. Report on issues/news that agree with your beliefs/views and ignore those that do not.

Because all the other businesses are doing the same thing.

Are you certain about this claim - any support?

Quote by enosis_

How does a business stay competitive if it's main concern is (self-imposed regulations?) maintaining the social heirarchy?

Because all the other businesses are doing the same thing.

who cares...it's a private business...if they choose not to treat people equally, that should be their own business. Most businesses want a diverse workforce and a diverse customer base.

Meantime, recent analyses have show a dearth of top women in the Obama administration and lower pay for those they do have....

I know three companies very well...and those companies bend over backwards to pay equally and foster minority and female developmental growth and advancement....AT&T is one.

I like the example of Lester Maddox, who shut down his business rather an integrate it. Subsequently he was elected governor of Georgia.

Businesses in the South strongly opposed integration even though it would increase the number of potential customers. Maintenance of the social hierarchy of status was more important.