>>514110848
so hardcore measures that less of the population would agree with, not even full backing of the democrat party, and would swing the public opinion further into supporting corporations? There would also be likely a huge cut to any corporate growth here in the states if those measures were enacted in fear if they got too successful their company would be sold off to the lowest domestic bidder
Tariffs were a thing 100 years ago, it's easier for people to get behind them as an ancient part of Americana
>>514111372
It's a fine balance, being less draconian to the corporations that if they figure the cost-benefit factor is high enough would move overseas if necessary. We've done tons of corporate bailouts and a cap on lawsuits filed against them if they act nefarious, both of these aren't capitalist policy and more so reflect the EU's policy on corporations
