Does anyone else here find this downright nauseating? Billions of dollars in New Year’s bonuses to the very same people that screwed up and dropped our economy in the toilet, only a year after a taxpayer funded bailout that was necessarry to keep their sorry arses from going bankrupt?
Can anyone make a case for this? Because i’m really at a loss to come up with a reason why such things should even be legal, much less considered good business practice.
Geez UPF, tell me you’re not suggesting the whole “we gotta hire the best” justification is ultimately spurious?? Or that technical ability at some point becomes moot if core intrinsic motivation is lacking??? Or that if pompous extrinsic reward remains the criterion for skill retention, then there’s little hope for corporate reform??? Please say you don’t think this applies equally to the whole ideology of profit maximization??? Surely they don’t go hand in hand!!!
A private institution can do whatever it wants - especially within the realm of compensation. Taxpayers shouldn’t have bailed out (see: rewarded insanity) the banks and then been surprised when they turned around and issued bonuses.
If you know you’re operating with a safety net - what’s your incentive to act reasonably? High risk yields high reward - and when failure isn’t a possibility - what would you do?
Government intervention - as usual - is the real culprit - though mysteriously absent from any scrutiny.
Such would hold water better if each bank printed their own money, but as it has come to be they’re intimately involved in a public trust. Banks, as they have evolved, aren’t simply “private enterprises”. You wouldn’t be recommending a return to pre-20s finance structures, would you?
I do agree, though, that Government intervention ought to be much more deeply scrutinized… such as: why the hell they’re letting this happen… Where are these magicians of commerce (bank execs) going to go if government disallows their gluttony? To the auto industry? To start their own business? …if they’re not happy doing the job for a reasonable salary, then, like anyone else in a situation of public trust, get rid of them. Too much of it is voodoo management anyway, falsely trumped skills oughtn’t be encouraged.
If they’re not private enterprises, you must be suggesting that they’re publicly owned? Though since we both know they’re not publicly owned - in fact - you must be suggesting that the act of providing a service that many people value makes them a de facto public organization, yes?
At what arbitrary point does a privately held organization go from being private to public - regardless of actual ownership structure? Further, which lucky individual gets to make this arbitrary imaginary line?
Why would they ask that question when they encouraged this very behaviour by eliminating the incentive to practice sound, ethical business? Ignore the question all you like - but the sad reality is that cheap money made possible by a fiat - government backed - monetary system and multiple government sponsored programs geared specifically towards encouraging private institutions to lend money to otherwise intolerably risky clients have created the despicable status quo that those like you refer to as “the free market”. 
That’s not the point. The last time I checked, the pillars of the Constitution were the right to life and liberty. The only implementation of such rights is through private property. What you’re advocating is a violation of the Constitution.
Ah yes - the old “relative” argument. Enlighten me - what is a “reasonable” salary? On what basis can such a value statement be made? Why should your measure of what constitutes “reasonable” be considered the measure by which all 6 billion individuals on this planet must accept? I’m sure you have some nice rationalization in mind – but at the end of the day – it’s nothing more than a rationalization that violates the Constitution.
Much of it is likely voodoo management. Yet it appears to be voodoo management that many people value - else they wouldn’t be paid. You and I may both look at what these bankers do with disgust and disbelief - but only one of us has the audacity to assume that one individual’s values ought be used as the basis for all values.
You’ll note that what I said was that banks are not “simply” private enterprises. My point rather is that they are effectively quasi-governmental institutions.
As to your other responses, I might first confess that I’m Canadian, and we’ve sort of been looking down from above here snickering (politely, of course) about the mis-regulation of American banks. Our radical socialist monetary policies up here saved our banking industry from the mess that Bush’s wheel-sleeping leadership created down your way. [Insofar as the home incentive programs had become so clearly out of whack, why didn’t a Republican government lift a single noticeable finger to do something about it? Perhaps because it was being turned into a scam and money was being made off of it?]
So, though I’d conceed that your constitutional references might have some sway within the limited context of American policy making, I’d also suggest that the U.S. might nonetheless take the opportunity to learn from others occasionally. Perhaps they might consult with Paul Martin in regards to banking regulations.
I specifically noted that you inferred some form of public ownership. Which is why I specifically asked you to elaborate on when, by whom and according to what metric a privately held organization becomes “quasi” (whatever that means) governmental institution. You apparently decided such clarifying questions weren’t worthy of response.
As chance may have it, as I am. Originally from Toronto - living abroad for the last 3 years - I’m a liberal university educated, leaf-cheering canuck. Your (our) nationality has no bearing on a principled discussion of rights - only a glimpse into our unique bias and perspective.
No “we” haven’t been. The facts indicate that the specific government interventionist tack that the Americans implemented was decidedly less effective than the government interventionist tack that the Canadians employed. However, if you believe the Canadian situation is bullet proof - I suggest you look into what’s happening in Winnipeg and Calgary insofar as government sanctioned, cheap money housing is concerned.
Ah yes - the knee jerk, anti-intellectual typical and oh so tiresome Canadian pre-packaged response to all things American. When you bore of reciting empty rhetoric and decide you’d like to understand both the philosophical and financial ramifications of both the current Canadian and American socio-political paradigms - I’ll be here.
While I don’t believe the dems and republicans are, in any way, materially different in philosophy - just in implementation - why don’t you enlighten us as to the differences you’ve noticed between the republicans approach to the economy and the democrats.
The American constitution was a milestone in human history. While I could enumerate many points in defense of that statement - I kindly request that you help me to understand the principles that underpin the Canadian Charter of Rights - and the earlier Constitution. Do you even understand the fundamentals on which Canadian law is based and how it was inspired by the US Constitution?
This type of “we’re better than you” argument makes us all look bad. Internationally, Canadians today can only define themselves as “not American” - but retain no sense of what that actually means , for better or for worse. I suggest you do some reading.
I’d point out that “Life, liberty, and happiness” aren’t Constitutionally guaranteed in America. Those are from the Declaration of Interdependence. I merely bring this up because Rightists in America routinely use this divided coupled with an abject rejection of the 14th Amendment to justify their morally abhorrent position.
There are arguments for all four sides in the debate regarding those two aspects. But I need to see some coherent arguments before I start considering anyone’s position!
Dairdo:
Can i just dumb this down a bit by asking where exactly in the Constitution is it written that a private institution can do “whatever it wants”, with regards to “compensation” (a gross misuse of the term, as it makes it sound as if this money was actually earned) or anything else for that matter?
The Constitution makes no reference to private institutions being able to do whatever they want with regards to compensation. What it does do is enshrine the right to private property. Privately held money is privately held property. Under America’s Constitution - the right to use your property as you see fit is protected. Whether you or I agree (and we do) on whether the money of many of these banking institutions was actually “earned” (trading value for value) - is irrelevant. So long as the property wasn’t obtained “illegally” - if you believe that all individuals have the inalienable right to life (and everything that that implies) - you cannot justify the violation of another individual’s property.
In both Canada and America - we share the notion of “freedom of speech”. While one may find what many people have to say completely abhorrent - we support their right to speak. Similarly - we may not like how the bankers obtained their money - and more specifically - how they’re choosing to dispense it - but unless we’re willing to sanction the violation of the right to private property - there is no justification … only rationalizations.
Darn Xun, coherence isn’t my strong suit. I think I’m gonna continue along with my ad hoc extemporaniousness as usual…
Hey Dairdo ([{by the way, a belated welcome 
}])
T’rontonian, huh? Ya, I did a stint at Y.U. (Social & Political Thought), …didn’t really know I was a Westerner until that 
I’m back in Alburda now (Canadian center of neo-conservativism, for our non-Canadian friends’ benefit). Sorry for the brief response previously, it’s due not only to the shallowness of my intellect, but for some reason I can’t make extended replys recently on my home computer (the reply box starts jumping all around, thus I can’t do extended quote-breakdowns at the moment 
… but it seems I can do smilies again, which is nice 
).
In short, I wasn’t particularly interested in disparaging the American Constitution (etc.), though the whole Lockean property rights thing, IMO, has somewhat overrun it’s historical course… (and I’ll leave the issue of Canadian identity to a different thread 
… as for the Charter, are you suggesting Trudeau was merely mirroring the U.S.?).
I’m not concerned to be conceiving things in terms of “ownership” of banks; rather, I’m making the observation that the rules as they apply to Widget Co. are rightfully distinct from how they apply to financial institutions. I’d suggest we stick to this: The influence that banks have on the daily life of the citizenry is not merely incidental, it is woven into the basic structure of society. As such, the notion that they can be allowed to proceed primarily in terms of self-interest is, I believe, fundamentally flawed. The nature of the banking business is inextricably communal. So too the housing industry, I’d add. Strict regulations are appropriate, on that basis alone. (Out of curiosity, how do you see such as Winnipeg & Calgary’s housing woes to be of comparable scale to the American scenario?)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming terribly indepth knowledge of economic theory here (i’m well read, but a sieve); still, I think I can tread water sufficiently with the main concepts. America is an often great country. So, I hear, is Denmark. There are lots of fine nation states out there. How’s banking in the Cayman’s (sorry, I’ve never been)?
Firstly - howdy. =) Toronto was too cold - and while the skier in me protested - I moved to warmer pastures to try my hand at scuba diving and sailing. Though my school debts are still being paid off… so I’m just having fun and being young. Nice to meet a fellow canuck on here. By the way - if my tone is ever overly abrasive - I apologize - as it is unintentional.
I’ve gathered that this is your opinion from your earlier posts. An opinion I used to share. Firstly - what are these “rules” that do not apply to financial institutions that do apply to regular business and what makes them “rightfully” distinct?
While I don’t advocate or support it whatsoever - the principled position would be to have governments in both Canada and the US purchase all banking institutions under the existing provisions that allow such acquisition of private property. In the US, this is known as “eminent domain” but it stipulates that government pay “fair market value” for any private property acquired. Simply and arbitrarily declaring private property suddenly “communal” for no other observable reason than the success (high demand) of the service - seems a little weak.
Is this simply what you “feel”? Or do you have sound reasons on which you base this opinion?
Like the housing bubbles in the US (which, incidentally, can only be created by government intervention/sanction) - governments in Manitoba through the assistance of the Federal government have generous housing and loan subsidization/insurance programs that basically encourage private banks to extend mortgages to people who arguably can not afford them. It’s been brewing for years in Winnipeg. Time will tell how well “regulated” Manitoba has been with respect to its burgeoning housing bubble.
Abraze away, Dairdo, my skin is as thick as my brain! 
I meant it the other way around, i.e. that “regular business” is much less regulated: e.g. when I set up my popcicle stand, I don’t have to hold funds on reserve to provide for popcicle suckers who pre-ordered but were left lickless by my sudden bankruptcy. Am I assuming incorrectly that banking is not “regular business”? I don’t know the particulars of the law in this respect, but are you suggesting they’re not substantially distinct? Insofar as they are, I’d presume to suggest they are so rightfully for, amongst others, the reason that the game of borrowing and lending is far too subtle for the average joe to be expected to play on their own. Don’t make me quote from “It’s a Wonderful Life” now!
I’m not taking the property perspective here; what I mean by communal has to do with how the banking system functions. A popcicle stand, or “regular business”, is not so foundational to the workings of society per se.
Yes, I “feel” this to be so, and my reasons are informed concommitant to that feeling: I believe society must be free to discover on an ongoing basis how it might better facilitate the lives of all its members, with particular sensitivity to its most vulnerable. Do you feel differently? …gotta go…
I do not see the banking industry as anything other than a regular business. Borrowing and lending is not complicated - and requires only a cursoring understanding of some rather rudimentary finance concepts. However, nearly 80 years of your government telling you that it’s mysterious and complex and something better left to “them” to control has incapacitated most otherwise prudent and intelligent citizens.
Historically - before heavy banking regulation - anyone with a sudden windfall of cash could start their own bank. Through reputation and sound money management - they were able to sell their services. Imagine yourself as a bank owner - earning the priviledge of housing your clients money. In a capitalist economy - the banks do serve a critical function of moving “capital” from those that don’t have an immediate purpose for it to those that do have an immediate purpose for it. However, unless you’re a completely insane bank owner - you would rationally limit your loans according to your own specific risk profile. You wouldn’t bite off more than you could chew - so to speak. Otherwise - not only does your bank die, but your livelihood dies, and your reputation and all of your clients lives are ruined. Will some banks fail? Most certainly. Will regulating them prevent that? Apparently not… All that the tremendous regulation has done is make it the banking industry more confusing, more complex and able to hide behind our government representatives “promises” and “intentions”.
This particular line of reasoning troubles me. If borrowing and lending was so separate and distinct from regular business - why do you suppose the average joe doesn’t spend an above average amount of time investigating and making an informed decision? What makes you so complacent when you delegate your individual responsibility for your own well being to the government? If government expands its powers to interfere in certain aspects of the economy - essentially making their poliitical “whims” an added risk to business that must be mitigated - it makes good business sense to pay them off and get them to “whim” in your favour or simply leave you alone.
Personally - I don’t trust a politician acting on behalf in the economy as far as I could throw him. The opportunity for corruption is far too great - yet so many people simply accept that as “the norm” instead of rallying to get the government out of the economy altogether. Baffling.
The only foundation in our society is a foundation of freedom - that individuals are free to conduct business with one another, without interference. The banks offer a service - a critical service - but nothing more. I would wager that doctors and lawyers provide equally valuable services. However, bankers, doctors and lawyers are all individuals and deserve the same rights and priviledges you and I enjoy. Why should we punish a banker for their success by declaring them “too important to fail” and therefore subject to our collective “whims”? Again, I ask, at what point are you able to rationalize the violation of the bankers individual rights? And why are you so certain that if you can rationalize away the rights of one group of individuals - that your rights are so safe from similar whimsical rationalizations in the future?
Yes, I think differently. “Society” is just a collection of individuals - nothing more. I hold no claim over you or any other individual in society. I do not hold you or any other individual responsible for my health or my financial well being. Yet somehow - when people refer to a group of individuals as “society” - they’re able to declare that that “society” should be taking care of them.
I used to argue exactly as you’re arguing now. The inherent contradictions that I couldn’t eventually overcome had to do with the concept of rights. When you “empower” society to do anything in the realm of the economy -you’re sanctioning the violation of one groups’ rights for the sake of another group. Government doesn’t produce anything and must therefore declare the rights of some (the most vulnerable for instance) are superior to the rights of others and take (at the point of a gun) accordingly. It is inherently wrong - and inconsistent with the real foundations of our society. Democracy doesn’t mean “mob rule” - and no group of people can empower any other group of people (government) with rights that they themselves do not have. If you couldn’t walk up to a rich man and take his money to be given to the poor – then there is no principled justification for the same action carried out by your government representatives. How can you delegate power you yourself do not have?
On my work computer, so got more space to write!
And yet issues such as usury have a long and involved history, along with such related concerns as indentured servitude (never mind episodes such as the Great Depression). One may well be relatively prudent and intelligent, but drown in financial waters due to predatory lending practices. If banking is indeed “regular business”, like a Widget Co., does it not operate under a motive which encourages selling its product whether or not the buyer really needs it?
At a certain point, isn’t the banker (as an individual) nicely isolated from the dire effects of their mismangagement? The Robber Barons, for instance. They may have been assholes, but they weren’t insane. I don’t think they really cared much about the shininess of their reputations, either. And that’s the point. Their demonstration of corporate greed went far in helping usher forth much more involved federal regulations.
I think the saying is, “Government for the people, by the people” (it works the other way around, too!!)… it’s not complacency that creates government, it’s necessity. Average joes, in the real world, are not capable of being sufficiently informed on a wide variety of things, including financial game-planning. Thus certain rules for the game are created and enforced by the state. Corruption might well be an unavoidable reality, but at least when it occures within a government context there are generally accessible structural mechanisms for addressing it. In any case, I don’t believe in perfection.
Surely this is too broad a charge. A few of the politicians I’m acquainted with are indeed suspect here, but most (on all sides of the ideological fence) are truly hard working individuals committed to doing what they can. (For instance, as a Torontonian, you probably know of Gerard Kennedy… he’s an old buddy of mine, and a beacon of social justice I assure you) Granted, it’s true no less in the business world than it is in the political that one bad apple can do big damage. In any event, I think such simply highlights the importance that leadership plays in politics (and for that matter, commerce).
Isolating a particular in conceptual analyses is a tempting thing. I would suggest there are multiple facets supporting the foundation of our or any society. “Freedom” is just another word for nothing left to lose ( 
) if it’s not accompanied by equally fundamental concepts, such as fairness, reciprocity, mutual aid… I’d certainly agree that the health care and justice systems are comparably fundamental to society. But as far as the rights and privileges afforded the individuals who work within them, well, they’re part of a context defined also by corresponding responsibilities. A doctor takes an oath that others don’t. A lawyer is bonded. A Banker, likewise. Their “success” is first and foremost a product of the fact that they have a “society” within which to learn and practice their skills. The “whimsical rationalizations” which make up the history of a society are in notable part reactions to the greed and contempt of powerful individuals who have violated the rights of masses of persons.
I assume you do not yet have any children… This concept of society lacks any cultural depth. “Individuals” are aspects of social reproduction. We all have our unique stories, tied in common by the languages we speak and terrain we inhabit. We have hold on each other, whether we like it or not… though, admittedly, some leave it all for distant shores.
Are you claiming that “society” and “economy” are discrete entities? Government produces (approximations of) “order”, which facilitates the processes of commerce, amongst other things…
I must assume you are an Idealist. At what point in history has there ever been this glennbeckian paradise you seem to be alluding to?
from antitrust to minimum wage to campaign funding laws, the constitution allows for regulations on private business - there is nothing unconstitutional per say about putting legal caps upon the size of corporate bonuses. you may contest doing so for other ideological reasons, but not strictly constitutional ones.
a reason and a legal justification are both rationalizations - the constitution is itself a long chain of rationalization built on certain pillars of reasoning, one of which is not in fact the absolute sanctity of privately held national resources as such - this orgiastic rain of bonus money upon the same people who just sent the national and global economy into a tailspin is the behavior of a cartel, not a group of responsible corporate citizens - the government can and should put restrictions on egregious corporate behavior in the name of public interest - just as we have laws governing the behavior of individual private citizens
to directly equate free speech and the spending of money is a mistake - and granted the constitution has its mistakes, but i don’t think that is among them
Most certainly. It is not my job as an individual to tell buyers what they do and do not need - as each buyer (an individual) is uniquely capable of making their own value assessments on their own. One man’s need may not be shared by another. I simply offer a good/service and am motivated to encourage as many people to buy as can be reasonably done so without violating anyone’s rights (ie: without forcing them).
Are you suggesting buyers who do not need or want a good/service can be somehow coerced into buying it? Would that not require the assumption that people are inherently incapable of thinking for themselves?
Define “robber barons” please. Further, what made them “assholes”? If hordes and hordes of customers flocked to buy from these individuals - they most certainly had developed a “shiny” reputation - wouldn’t you say? Perhaps you could provide a couple of key names - and brief historical account of what specifically makes them distinguishable examples of corporate greed. I suspect you’ve inherited these opinions as a result of misinformation and biased, revisionist interpretations of history. Look at your paragraph above - not one fact - simply regurgitated rhetoric, stated as if such notions were self-evident or commonly held truths. They are not.
And you infer from this statement that whatever the majority votes goes? That democratic functions within the scope of a republic somehow empowers governments to do whatever they want? The statement above reflects the belief that there are no rights above individual rights - that rights aren’t handed down from on high (God, King, Queen, etc.) but rather - are recognized by the people and are protected (governed) by the people. It does not mean that the government must take care of peter by robbing paul. We are each responsible for ourselves - and government makes sure we have the freedom to do so. Nothing more.
I agree and disagree. I don’t expect all average joes to do all of the research necessary to understand all of the possible ramifications associated with their financial decisions - any more than I expect all average joes to research and understand all of the science behind mechanical engineering. However, this “need” that many people have for information and assistance with understanding complex issues - is simply an opportunity for other individuals to fill. At the end of the day - you are still responsible for your own decisions - but if you’ve received bad advice - you have legal recourse.
Not so when you rely on the State. The State becomes involved in the economy - empowering itself - thereby opening itself up to corruption and manipulation. Why do you trust the State so much? What has it done to earn your deep and profound level of trust?
Really? How so? When a business screws you over - you sue them according to an objective set of laws. When the government screws you over - they do so legally - and your only recourse is to suck it up and wait for the next election - at which time you cross your fingers and hope the next guy won’t succumb to the same corruption… instead of simply rallying to get government out of the economy thereby eliminating the opportunity to become corrupted in the first place…
It is not a broad charge leveled at specific individuals. It is a charge leveled at the structure of a system that empowers politicians with the ability to act “on whims” and make arbitrary though “well intentioned” decisions that can and does have a tremendous impact on the economy --more specifically–the businesses that drive the economy. If you knew a politician was considering enacting some legislation that would seriously hurt your future ability to conduct your business according to how you thought it needed to be managed… you would certainly make every effort to influence that politician to leave you alone. It is only rational. This is the problem - played out on a national stage with much higher stakes and complexity. Remove the politicians from a position in which businesses are compelled to “curry favour” - and instead focus them on protecting our political rights - by clamping down on all types of fraudulent business practices.
We’re scratching the surface of much larger discussions. But to your point - what is fairness? Who determines what is fair? Can you tell me what is fair in my business transactions with arms-length third parties? Maybe what I think is fair is not what you think is fair. However, since you’re not the one doing business with me - why should you get a say? We’re all individuals - and each capable of making our own decisions as to what is fair. If we feel vulnerable from a position of inexperience - then we seek the experience necessary to alleviate that concern.
The point is - without freedom - we wouldn’t be capable of making any value judgments that would be required to determine what is “fair” or sufficiently reciprocal.
It sounds like you’re suggesting that doctors are somehow “slaves of the state” by way of choice - and they must accept that. Why is it you feel justified in telling doctors how they can earn a living - but not a garbage man? Why is it you can state that doctors provide one of the most valuable services in society – but simultaneously declare that they are only allowed to offer those services as “you” decide?
On the contrary - after much research into railroads and other “robber baron” industries of old - I argue that it is through corrupt and deceitful politicians opening the door to and then later shielding through government backed monopolies and financing - that the public screamed out for reactions. Look at the development of the railroads across both Canada and the USA. There wasn’t a rational railroad man in the continent who believed a profitable trans-continental railroad could be constructed in the mid-19th century. While all railroads at that point were private - they were largely coastal - or regional - because that’s the only demand that could support a fully functional railroad. And competition was stiff - so reputation and innovation was paramount. Enter the politicians and opportunists - who recognized the public desire for a trans-continental railroad. What followed was government financing and complete legal support for the development of said railroad - regardless of whether it could be built profitably or not. The result? Thugs and thieves spread out across the mid-west - forcing countless farmers off their land to make room for the railway.
Incidentally - it was specifically from these instances of fraudulent acquisition of property and corrupt practices that spawned the anti-trust legislation. The public was convinced that unregulated business was the cause - and the same politicians took advantage of fear and capitalized by increasing their ability to influence the economy - thus increasing their ability to squeeze business for every penny they could.
Don’t take my word for it though. Do some research.
Cultural depth? Aspects of social reproduction? You’re going to have to offer me a little more than lofty rhetoric to persuade me that I somehow “owe” an obligation to all members of society to take care of them - and that my productive effort can be “justly” forced to serve the society if and when the society says so… well… whoever “controls” the society I suppose…
Huzzah! Yes - that is government’s proper, and only, function. While we each, as individuals, have the right to defend ourselves and our property - it would be chaos - feuding families and rival factions killing each other over who knows what. Government provides the necessary lynch pin for civil society. It places the legal use of force under an objective and neutral control. However, this most certainly does not mean that government can then use that social acknowledgment of its legal use of force to then strip me of my rights - by taking my property or forcing me to work for the needs of others.
You may label me whatever helps you sleep at night – but those labels won’t answer questions that concern with how you justify the violation of an individual’s rights…
And what does the existence or non-existence of such a philosophical system have to do with anything? For countless human generations - it was inconceivable that societies would sprout up in the 18th and 19th centuries that would subjugate society (or God, or King, or whatever) to the rights of the individual. What makes the non-existence of any society relevant evidence against its acceptability?
I disagree. Though I’m exhausted and a number of glasses of wine down… I’ll have to collect my thoughts before responding.
I see your point - and agree. When I’ve referenced rationalizations in previous posts - it is usually in response to how others “justify” a contradictory position whereby they claim to value a right such as property, but then violate it when it suits some other objective. This type of justification is a rationalization - void of any actual principled defense.
And what about the government? Tremendous amounts of data and scholarly input suggests government is the single greatest contributing factor the economic “tailspin” you’ve alluded to. Why is it the solution you would have us accept to bad, interfering government is even more interfering government? Isn’t that the definition of insanity?
Though I must say - I do agree with your point about the cartel like behaviour of the banks (as opposed to good corporate citizens). I think this kind of monopolistic cartel is particularly destructive; however it is only sustainable through government sponsorship, collusion and support.
You would only have us treat the symptom and not the disease.
when there’s no cure or vaccine, sometimes treating the symptoms is the best you can do - it’s better than nothing.