How is it a conspiracy. The whole object of a franchise is to reduce legal liability of the franchiser.
And you haven't explained what you mean by economically feasible is. I think a model which requires millions to live in poverty isn't very feasible. But that's just me. You seem to think if you can increase the bottom line its feasible. I think there's a lot of externalities that your and other conservatives analysis misses (intentionally of course, because god forbid business has a social responsibility and obligation)
Let's set a baseline for feasibility: no honest definition of the term could discount circumstances as they actually exist. If reality exhibits X, then it must be true that X is feasible. You may not like X, or you may consider it immoral, but it's disingenuous to attempt to convey your dislike, or its immorality, through the rhetoric of feasibility. More particularly, by "feasible," I mean what is usually meant by that word when honestly used. Likewise "economically," though in this context, I mean with respect to the economy, not "with thrift."
If limited liability were all that franchisors were after, they'd form subsidiaries, and wouldn't be franchisors. Franchises enable relatively rapid brand expansion by having different companies shoulder the burden of establishing and operating the same business in different places.
You allege that franchising is just a trick that fools the government and Internet commenters like PhoenixDark into believing that it's something it isn't. But it's not a trick, notwithstanding your refusal to acknowledge the distinction between a business with multiple locations and a business with multiple franchisees. There's a real difference between Company A establishing Stores 1, 2, and 3; and Company A licensing it's trademarks and providing training to Companies B, C, and D (which are not affiliated by ownership with Company A), which then each establish their own stores.
