I'm regularly struck by how every day the Financial Times features advocacy for ideas that aren't stereotypically pro-business.

Often the FT seems as concerned about climate change, wealth inequality, bad epistemics in politics, under-investment in science and tech... 1/

...and lack of aggregate demand as The Guardian. And its writers seem equally willing to endorse the taxes & spending necessary to fix them.

Of course part of this is just that FT journalists & readers are smart, informed people who care about things going well for the world. 2/

People aren't just walking bundles of class interests, they're individuals with moral agency.

But I think an underrated reason is that in the long term businesses can only thrive and make big profits when the whole of society is thriving. 3/

Sure, any one individual business might benefit from some stupid policy like mandatory hairdresser licensing, the construction of a coal power plant, or a military arms race.

But not businesses as a whole. 4/

To the private sector as a group, giveaways to any individual business are just a drag on total production.

And sure, you might juice profits this year with a tax cut, but you can't keep cutting taxes every year — it's a trick that only gets you so far. 5/

Considering things over the next 100 years the only way for businesses to make more profit is to have society as a whole flourishing, and total productivity rising as a result. 6/

That means the business sector needs:

• Stable, predictable, intelligent governance
• Voters who endorse the system of government they have, and aren't on the verge of revolt
• An educated, capable, and healthy workforce 7/

• Every individual having enough wealth to invest in themselves and make the most of their talents
• A climate that isn't constantly destroying your infrastructure
• Staff who aren't poisoned daily by particulate pollution 8/

• Lots of new scientific research that can be used to raise productivity and generate entirely new business opportunities
• The absence of wars, as they're expensive, pull smart people out of the private sector, and otherwise interfere with production and trade 9/

• Social ills like drug addiction kept to a minimum
• Abundant housing so people can easily move where the productive jobs are
• Not having to waste money on bullshit jobs, e.g. lots of lawyers to protect against frivolous lawsuits thanks to a badly-designed legal system 10/

• Low levels of crime as it ruin the lives of staff, and reduces both trust and investment
• Allowing people to migrate from low-productivity to high-productivity countries
• People who want to have children can afford to do so and raise the next generation. 11/

It's easy to focus on ways the rich and the poor, or business-owners and their staff, have different interests.

But in the big picture they have much more in common than they have apart. 12/