Ironic post of the decade! You want to increase competition, by limiting competition. You can't make up this sort of comedy.
Yes, how funny of you. Nobody who lives in the USA that needs a minimum of $10-$16 an hour to make ends meet without mooching off the government, can compete with a grass hut dweller making $2.50 a day. Hilarious at the ignorance you display.
Yes when only one bread winner per household was sufficient to provide all of a families needs and mom could run the household while dad earned enough to feed the entire family well balanced nutritional meals of fresh foods unlaced by poisons/preservatives. When a single breadwinner was able to place a roof over the families head, pay for their own doctor bills without the need for insurance, and was still able to put a little money aside for a rainy day or to help put a kid or two through college without dependency on the government, or other tax payers. Yep we got better toys, but on average we work longer hours, more jobs, with two bread winners on duty and more of a percentage of those combined paychecks go for the same necessities items like food and housing, we have to have insurance to get basic health care needs, and less and less people are able to sustain their own profitable businesses than ever before. And our families are much worse off because of it. But I guess it all depends on how delusional one wishes to spin the reality of the situation and/or remember things.Ahh, evoking "romanticism of the past" -- You mean the same 50's and 60's where we segregated part of our population, air conditioning wasn't ubiquitous, the same 50's and 60's where we had a lower quality of life and even as a percent of GDP, produced and consumed far less?
Your romanticism is nothing but that. We're far better off today than anyone living 50+ years ago.
So many deserving workers relegated to second hand citizens... Oh yea... and we employee more people today, even with current unemployment numbers than have ever worked at any time in history.
With jobs that make them eligible for government handouts that drain our system unmercifully.
The rest of your post was mostly arrogant filth attempting to portray me as someone who is antigrowth and prosperity, when ironically you're the one who endorses policies that work against those goals.
I just calls em as I see em, and you portray yourself as what you are. Your goals are to create unnatural wealth for the chosen few, and an imposed dependency on the majority. The facts contradict your fantasy world.