Well, okay, but absent a time machine, you can't fix that. Any solution that starts with "well you should have thought of that before" has already failed. Mista

Well, okay, but absent a time machine, you can't fix that. Any solution that starts with "well you should have thought of that before" has already failed. Mistakes happen; a system that can't tolerate mistakes is a system designed to fail. Sounds like a great ad for more free-market solutions ;) "Do what I want, or face an existential threat" is pretty much the dictionary definition of "force." I'll concede that point, but the whole point of a free market is that you can't force anyone to do anything. If a deal isn't mutually beneficial then people don't agree to it. Simple as that. I use "force" everyday when I continue to not buy products from companies I don't like and help drive them towards change or extinction. Sure, some people have more leverage than others, that is always the case. But that doesn't matter. You're biggest mistake is thinking that it is bad when one party has a lot of say over another party (like McDonald's over their cashiers). It's not. That's called cutting out the middle man. If I can continue to do business without the little guys, or only need a few little guys anymore, I'm going to negotiate a less favorable deal with them or cut them out entirely. This is what drives progress. Eventually the big guy no longer needs the little guy, great! Cheaper products for everyone! As the big guy has more say, and it becomes worse to be a little guy, the little guys leave. A balance is reached. This is how free-markets operate. Creative destruction always hurts some people, but in the end we all prosper (when robots take all our jobs social assistance is necessary but the point stands) Do you think GM would have negotiated such a bad deal with the dealers if the tables weren't beginning to turn in GM's favor? Of course not!