4 ms·
That sounds like it could be cost effective if one only includes the individual businesses and cover their losses, but it can still cause second order effect ha
by actionfromafar 3y ago
That sounds like it could be cost effective if one only includes the individual businesses and cover their losses, but it can still cause second order effect harm, like customers changing habits and not returning to the original place. Something to think about. Suboptimal infrastructure is also costly, of course...
- BobaFloutist 3y agoHonestly I'd be fine with it if the public agencies just used it as a justification for a eminent-domain style "We're going to do this project this way in the interest of the public, we're giving you some cash to cover your immediate costs, and that's that."
- immibis 3y agoThe justification for business owners making profits is that it's payment for taking risks. Why then are we trying to shield them from risks while still allowing them to make profits?
- bluGill 3y agoBecause we want business to take those risks. In the end I benefit from those businesses - not all of them, but some of them. Businesses should take risks. However government should not add extra risk without careful consideration.
- samatman 3y agoBusiness owners making profit needs no justification, that's entirely backward. Anywhere there are people, there are goods for sale. The ones who need to justify themselves are the ones who propose to restrict this. It can be done, I consider the restrictions on the nuclear weapons and slave markets eminently justifiable. But in a free society, the default is freedom.