We had a financial meltdown because they WERE diametrically opposed. And they still are.
There are many instances where it is not possible to protect the Public and increase the profits of Businesses that prey on that public at the same time. One example is Credit Card regulation. Business was against the regulations, because they cut into their profits. But they were in the interests of the Public. By your rules unless there was some way to secure the previous profit margin of Businesses, there should have been no change to Credit Card regulations. And I don't agree with that. There are times when the Public Interest, and Business Interests *ARE* Diametrically opposed. Another rather sophomoric example is Anti-competitiveness laws. Clearly against the interests of big business, but definitely in the Public's Interest. Price Fixing is another sophomoric example. Clearly against the interests of big business, but definitely in the Public's Interest. On 27 September 2010 15:06, G Money <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wrong answer. The correct answer is: Increase business profits AND benefit > the general public. The two are not diametrically opposed. I know, that > probably doesn't compute with you...but that's part of your "charm". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:327992 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
