Duh! That's certainly UNFAIR.
... and the great logic fail is that "Unfair" should also be "Illegal"? What about when you buy a new TV on a Wednesday and miss out on the Black Friday deal? Was that fair to you? Shouldn't one assume that prices change, volume matters, etc? This is a perfect example of a "free", but not "perfect" market. Taking your specific case, you can no longer differentiate yourself via access to special data (say, airline routing and pricing data?), but rather have to supply an additional service. Welcome to the real world; the line forms to your left.
Just looking at fractional reserve under-capitalization (due to criminally-negligent monetary policy), the concomitant fraud in how various mortgage-backed securities were represented, the fraudulent credit-default-swap over-selling, and the ongoing-now MLS fiasco, we're talking about massive, documented fraud for which not one person (to my knowledge
If the problem is a lack of laws, I'll support it; I just suggest that enforcement or repeal of existing laws would be more prudent ("don't legalize fraud or theft in the first place")
Rather than address the caricature ("crony capitalism"), I'll keep it simple: the free market is nothing more (or less) than a statement that groups of people are both untrustworthy (as individuals and in groups) and yet the only means of efficiently measuring the desires of other people.
So on two points the free market is held up in opposition-- not to government (in se), but to "Statism": (1) that all transactions should be done without violence and (2) central planning necessarily fails to accurately predict (a) pricing or (b) goods and quantities (as a function of failed pricing analysis). (1) is violated when the state compels one to (a) not do something one otherwise wants or (b) do something one would not otherwise do. (2) was largely proven by Mises, and does not imply that private entities are superior at the analysis or prediction, only that they care more due to the profit/loss requirements.
"Statism" looks to government as its god in the same way you broadly accuse Americans of looking to the idol of "Free Market". Us Paleo-Conservative minarchists (new word for the day) don't want government abolished-- we already agree we need it because evil exists, we just want it to operate in its proper sphere.The very crony capitalism/corporatism you despise is a function of the a state failure, not a market failure. You want a solution? It's not "Regulation" that's the answer, it's "Enforcement." We don't need any new laws, quotas, procedures, or double-check overhead to know that bad stuff gets done, and such things NEVER catch it beforehand. What we need is for our executive branches (not digging at POTUS, just the entire "law enforcement" segment of government) to have the stones to throw the cronies in jail. Don't blame the market for failures at the governmental level, and don't look to the already-failing bureaucrat for a solution
There's a lot more daytime melt-and-refreeze once you get south of Virginia.
with these programs been cheered on by most of those in journalism
... and please hold the snarky comments about editing; I thought I reviewed it
I agree that the Fourth Estate (right?) is important, but its value is historically overstated, and it is easily co-opted for outright propaganda.
His argument was pretty straightforward, and can be restated this way: every cost that is not intrinsic to the core business (especially, as was noted, in a time of general economic distress) necessarily reduces the overall viability of the business. If catering to those with disabilities were profitable to companies, they would already be doing it. Since they are not already doing it, we must conclude that either (a) it is not profitable and is, therefore, economic destruction or (b) an unrealized gold mine.
For some company C, I'm sure that it will be (b) after they do some extensive capital improvements (just like the development of most real gold mines); for most companies, this will be a sinkhole.
And yes, the same logic applies to the ADA. Yes, I think it is neat-o that ramps, door widths, and the like allow those with reduced mobility to access pretty much any place they want. Perhaps the blossoming of such is a sign of a moral and considerate society. But bringing it about via coercion and then pretending that kindness and brotherly love are overflowing at the city gates is a bit rich.