This is just a false narrative to try to justify a more controlled society. > I could point you (in private) to at least two companies (big on my country's mar

This is just a false narrative to try to justify a more controlled society. > I could point you (in private) to at least two companies (big on my country's market in their particular segments) I know personally cheat and steal, including lying on the phone to people who have managed to figure out the deception and called in to complain. So those customers should just switch to a different provider. Now, if we are talking about companies that have regulatory capture, which we probably are, that's a different story. But you want to expand that regulation... > The other one has their office in a low-population region and is the one of the few available employers for the locals - this allows the CEO to both abuse the employees and to avoid scrutiny by keeping the local work inspector bribed. No one has to stay in a low-population region. > There are many, many ways in which Joes and Janes Random Entrepreneurs abuse customers; it's pretty much common practice. It's not common practice to sell tainted meat. It's not the case that everybody does it. And since meat is already regulated by the government everywhere, apparently your solution doesn't work, anyway (though actually it does work OK and you are blowing up the problem). > Customers voting with their wallets is bullshit in most industries and companies know it. People are quick to get outraged but slow to change their habits. That is absolutely false. Customers go for the best deal they can get. They switch if they get pissed off and have other options. And they always have other options unless there is regulatory capture. I'm sorry, but people are just not utter morons that keep repeating the same tasks over and over again even if they have bad consequences. Your view of humanity is really unrealistic.