> Stability is good for business.

For existing business, not new one

Disagree in the general case. Instability costs money, and incumbent players with better access to capital can survive more easially. On the other hand, stability in regulations make it easier for a start up to derisk themselves as there will be a well built up series of case law around the relevant regulations.

Now, if you mean technology instability, completely agreed. That's where innovation comes from.

I think Uber's a perfect example. Taxi regulations either have been stable or essentially unenforced for decades in most places. This gave them the opening. However, everyone getting a smartphone in 2010-2011 is what really blew the doors open.

At the risk of moving the goalposts, if what you're saying is true, then I disagree with the premise that "stability is good for business" is a good thing. This kind of "stability" leads to stagnation and ossification, which I consider to be negatives in any society.

You’re thinking of a different kind of stability. I think OP was referring to thinks like a stable financial system, legal and law enforcement and economic policy.

Those are generally good for new businesses too. Who wants to start a new business when someone comes by and changes all the rules suddenly?

Are we really having a Ferengi _Rules of Acquisition_ thread now?

> War is good for business