3 ms·
Look, he's clearly having a hissy fit, which isn't the best look for any CEO. But you saying "billionaire" here is pejorative and unnecessary. How about "...f
by mft_ 6y ago
Look, he's clearly having a hissy fit, which isn't the best look for any CEO. But you saying "billionaire" here is pejorative and unnecessary.
How about "...for CEOs to threaten moving their economic operations to places where governments are more hospitable". Still dangerous and toxic?
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe problem I see here really is that he has a lot of money. If billionaires get their way by threatening dire consequences, it creates the perception that rules and regulations are for sale to sufficiently high bidders, or even worse that billionaires can create company towns which must pass whatever regulations they want. If the CEO of some 100 person company tweets out "screw you guys I'm moving to Texas", I think that's fine. Even if the state makes changes in response, nobody's going to think that his money alone was the deciding factor.
- mft_ 6y agoThe reason his threat is credible is because he runs a large business which brings jobs and prosperity to the states that it operates in. In this case, him being rich is irrelevant, as he’s not threatening to use his personal wealth.