Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu
The "unfair advantage" argument or a "bad-actors" clause is no different in principle than import duties, commonly imposed by nations across the globe. It is protectionism for in-country businesses against out-of-country businesses that have a market advantage. Should not a federal government use its powers to protect its own business entities, which in a capitalist society also serves to protect its citizens (keeps jobs in-country, etc.)?
Note: This is a theoretical argument. In this case, PokerStars will be investing in US jobs, etc.
Absolutely not. In the end, these deals almost always end up to the benefit of inefficiency businesses, and almost always encourage worse business models to thrive. A foreign company producing goods at a lower costs also helps citizens of this country, it just benefits different citizens. The government isn't a trustworthy, or "smart" enough (nobody is) to direct the economy in the best ways (for efficiency, it's citizens, etc.)
Plus, in this case, Stars couldn't operate in the US (as in, AFAIK, they weren't allowed to be located here.) You can hardly blame them. The "unfair" advantage they have is that the US didn't allow companies to do what they do for a long time. Imagine if the US temporarily banned the manufacturing of cars for a few years. When the market opened back up, would it make sense to ban the import of Toyotas?