TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

I'm saying the pros and cons are not clear. California laws favor the people at the expense of business. So business leaves and people follow. Texas favors business at the expense of the people.

Businesses chase profit at expense of the people, however profit is paid for from people themselves so usually when businesses harm people it's insidious and subtle and doesn't become apparent until years later. Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and the whole pain killer scandal are primary examples. The harm these companies did to people were not apparent until much much later.

What will happen in Texas is that the harm done to people by unregulated businesses will not be apparent until many years later. At that time regulations will slowly build up as people protest and demand the government to protect the people. This is what happened in California.... history repeating itself.

It might take a decade or your entire lifetime for this change to occur and become fully realized. Meanwhile people will be harmed while California becomes more and more like Michigan.

No, place X has the same people with the same human impulses as place Y. They simply have different circumstances and different experiences at different times.

People want to work a job and keep as much of the income as possible. They want to found businesses and make money.

They also don't want poison in their water supply, or any of the numerous externalities which industry is in the habit of creating.

Texas and California strike a very different balance in that landscape. The net result of which is that people are leaving California, and people are moving to Texas.

Characterizing that as "California favors people and Texas favors business" is kinda weird, don't you think? Looks like Texas favors both, right at the moment.

All regulation is created for the purpose of protecting people. California has more people protecting laws than Texas therefore California favors people over Texas.

There's literally no other reason why regulation exists. And all businesses that have less regulation have more options to succeed financially that would otherwise be restricted by regulation. Regulation therefore exists to serve people. So by logic less regulation means conditions more favorable for business and less favorable to people.

Unless you can think of some other reason why regulations exist this is the only possible logical deduction. Does California create laws that don't favor business because California just wants to screw with businesses for no reason? Let's be real.

Make no mistake. There is no frame here, this is reality unfiltered.

Additionally keep in mind businesses cannot directly screw people over. Profit comes from people and companies cannot directly screw over the thing they derive profit from. When businesses screw people over it's usually obscured in some way. Think again to the antics of big oil and big tobacco. If deregulated businesses are harming the people of Texas in some way you likely won't know until many years from now.

That is a politically naive, idealistic perspective that does not align with reality.

Regulation often exists to serve entrenched monopolies and to raise barriers to entry. Sometimes, regulation is a purely emotional knee-jerk reaction to a particular wave of passing news or events. It's often ill-considered over the long term. Long after a society or economy has changed or evolved to the point of rendering the regulation obsolete, the regulation continues to impose costs and burdens on the subjects of that regulation.

It turns out that laws are easier to enact than to roll back. There's a bias to keep existing laws, no matter the opportunity costs.

And that's without digging into my former point, which is that much regulation is the result of cronyism at the highest levels to serve special interest groups.

> Profit comes from people do anything they screw people over for is usually obscured in some way.

Profit comes from economic value creation or perceived economic value creation in the marketplace (as determined by the market). It is revenue minus expenses. It comes from any economic activity that is conducted between two parties in a mutually agreed upon transaction in which both parties trade one type of value for another.

No this is you misinterpreting the context at hand. The context is "Businesses" so when I refer to regulation I refer exclusively to "Business regulation." You are naive to think that a person with that ludicrous level of naivety and idealism even exists. If anything it is your views that are naive. Texas favors both people and businesses? How convenient. That's idealism through and through.

When regulating people the purpose is often to protect people but like you said regulating people can often serve to form cartels, monopolies or other business interests. This is utterly clear and obvious to everyone and it is not part of the context or topic at hand. Again the topic is "regulating business" or enacting laws that restrict what businesses can do..

Specifically to address your example of "Barrier to entry." A Barrier to entry is a regulation enacted on people outside of the business that promotes this regulation. This type of regulation is regulating people, aka the market not businesses. This is not what I'm referring to. Think about it logically. A barrier to entry is not a regulation on a business because the business likely already passed the barrier to entry so the business is effectively not being regulated. Why would a business be so stupid as to regulate itself? These regulations come from the people who serve the self interest of the people.

Make no mistake when regulating "business" there is little other reason why it is done other than for the purpose of benefiting the people. There are very few other reasons why regulation on business itself exists. Think about it.

The only other time this happens is when corporations are in competition with each other and invoking laws to regulate each other but this rarely happens as competitors are in the same industry, regulating a competitor may mean regulating yourself.

The single example I know of where business regulation was done to serve the long term interest of business was the light bulb filament oligopoly where light bulb makers were regulated and fined to deliberately shorten the length of time light bulb filaments would last in order to increase business within the oligopoly. But again this type of regulation is very rare.

> Profit comes from people do anything they screw people over for is usually obscured in some way.

This is a typo. I didn't notice but somehow a huge portion of what I was suppose to say was deleted.

Let me paste the corrected quotation for more clarity:

Additionally keep in mind businesses cannot directly screw people over. Profit comes from people and companies cannot directly screw over the thing they derive profit from. When businesses screw people over it's usually obscured in some way. Think again to the antics of big oil and big tobacco. If deregulated businesses are harming the people of Texas in some way you likely won't know until many years from now.