> One of my yardsticks is that when the Economist supports something, it's clear that those that claim that it would be "bad for business/bad for the market" are no longer to be believed.

What's the basis for that belief?

Surely it's not "biz survived" because biz can survive things that are bad for them.

Also, the flourishing of other biz doesn't imply that some biz wasn't hurt.

For example, criminalization of morphine (early last century in the US) hurt legal drug retailers.