The Atlantic's Max Fisher read my post yesterday on which states offer a good environment for business, and promptly misread it. To revisit, CNN posted a slideshow ranking the best states to start a business based solely on how little taxation and regulation exists in each. I suggested that the ranking was biased, and that businesses have other requirements for success -- infrastructure, employees, customers, economic growth -- and that a proper business plan should take into account all these things, some of which the government provides. The title of my post was "Ideology Isn't Good Business."
Enter Fisher, who reads this argument and says:
The different conclusions reached by Fernholz and CNN.com are about ideology. Fernholz, who is liberal, sees government as being able to provide an environment that is beneficial to innovation and growth. CNN.com's writer, Malika Worrall, who kicks off the list by writing "Attention libertarians," clearly sees government as a burden on industry. So who is right?
Now, in case my headline wasn't a clue, the post wasn't based on my liberal preferences for government investment. It was based on the realities faced by business operators, who often benefit from government action. I made a point to note that regulation and taxation do create real costs for businesses, and that policymakers have an obligation to make sure that their benefits outweigh those costs. But you can't pretend, as CNN did, say that those are the only costs a business faces. Does Fisher really think this is an either-or proposition? Or is it merely more convenient for him to present this debate as a battle between opposing ideologues rather than assess the evidence and risk agreeing with a, gasp, liberal?
An update: Fisher wishes it known that he is, in fact, a liberal, and that he was trying to present both sides of the argument. That's all well and good, but I still don't think framing this discussion as an ideological dispute is an accurate depiction of the debate at hand.
-- Tim Fernholz