Overname Weyl nog niet rond

ach ja kun je zien als arbeider tel je niet meer mee en wordt er puur voor het grote geld gekozen, langleve nederland regelgeving land maar in deze situaties geeft men niet thuis

als vion weyl overneemt sluiten ze boel hebben ze ook met andere in het verleden hendrix vestingingen gedaan ze noemen het met een mooi woord ''produktconfuguratie''ze hebben niks met personeel

latten we hoopen dat ze het niet dicht gooien dan kommen er 650 mensen die geen baan meer hebben en werk zoeken valt niet mee in deze tijd en de ww is ook geen vette pot colegas sterkte ven veel geluk met zoeken van een nieuw baan wurgslang de op hanger

natuurlijk willen ze dat vaste personeel niet,ze willen poolse uitzendbureaus ,kunnen ze lekker de cao omzeilen,en het vlees voor dump prijzen verkopen ,zoals weyl zelf ook deed bij c1000,en hun export,misschien ook nog een goed idee om de boeren een half jaar op hun geld te laten wachten in plaats 100 dagen,kun je het geld mooi weg sluizen

gambling and warges are heavily regulated or banned outright in nearly every country There is of course lots of gambling in the U.S though it is heavily regulated in most places. Vegas & Atlantic City are big, along with indian casinos, but then the state governments also rely heavily on revenue from lotteries. Are these all controlled and appropriate contexts ? No more so than any professional financial exchange market, I'd say.I'm surprised Posner & Weyl didn't mention an important reason for banning life insurance contracts on people you don't know: it can create an incentive to murder (and there have been cases of people repeatedly comitting murder to collect life insurance, although in some old cases it was a spouse which is a legit claimant).They argue that people in financial markets are usually seeking financial security , but I don't know if that's the case in these more speculative kinds of markets. They might propose betting limits, as with Iowa, rather than a complete ban. And if they typically have little sense of the risks they are taking on , that's an argument for better informing people (perhaps requiring an autority to judge whether a participant is properly informed) rather than a complete ban. People gambling with the money of others happens in many parts of finance, not just these speculative contracts. And again a more limited regulation like only allowing particular institutions (hedge funds but not mutual funds) to participate seems sensible.Regarding systemic risk , an argument I've heard recently is that what happened recently was a common shock : there were lots of bets on high real estate values and everyone who bet that way lost. I'm not competent to evaluate the argument, but it does sound a lot like what happened. In that case allowing people to bet on more different things rather than crowding onto one factor could actually REDUCE systemic risk.Don Geddis, are you just making an argument from authority? I haven't read the book myself, but the quoted passage sounds like an assertion which would need some backing to convince a paternalist. And the reason the principle is absent from the Constitution is that when written it granted so little power to the central government that there wasn't thought to be that much need to add additional restrictions.Khoth, I halfway agree. Posner & Weyl refer to wasteful expenditures as to supply valuable information to markets in a timely fashion . It is a waste in their perspective, but not necessarily Hanson. In contrast, argument is something just Hanson is talking about and by postulate it is argument we are talking about rather than some other label, so I have no idea why he scare-quoted it.I would like Hanson to give his perspective on the DOJ and FTC deciding whether to permit mergers to proceed. A general skepticism of government would way against, but he alread has indicated he believes mergers generally destroy wealth in the process of demonstrating a CEO's power.