3 ms·
This is a very naive statement! You are implying that the benefits of businesses and states are somehow exclusive to each other, but I believe there is plenty o
by narraturgy 5y ago
This is a very naive statement! You are implying that the benefits of businesses and states are somehow exclusive to each other, but I believe there is plenty of historical precedent of situations where the "benefits" to a business prompt (in)action by states! The "benefits" to a state are so nebulous of a concept that I would argue that it is impossible to pin down any meaningful definition which we would be able to quantitatively use as a predictor for (in)action, except a cynical case where we define the "state" as "the groups/individuals in charge of governing a state," at which point it becomes trivial to reason out what the "benefits" to that "state" would be.
- LordDragonfang 5y agoIt's telling that the only parties that they're considering the benefit for are the state and businesses, with no mention of workers, who are the clear beneficiaries of this policy.