• GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I mostly meant that in the sense that a country doesn’t need to be “profitable” or economical. They are the only actor on the market that can pursue other objectives than profit, like the welfare of the population or ecosystem, and also the only actor who can essentially ignore the rules because they make the rules.

    • mellowheat@suppo.fiOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Countries don’t need to be profitable, but also they cannot be hundreds of millions in the negative.

      They can ignore or change of course all the rules that have been made up, but nobody can ignore the principles of economics.

      • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m not arguing they should throw all sense in the wind and do whatever, but obviously this radical type of neoliberalism is an utter failure in caring for the citizens. And I would argue the first and foremost responsibility of any government is to care for its people, not to make the country an attractive investment.