In general, I think the article took a premise and cherry-picked examples to support its premise without bothering to consider the counterpoint. Let's take for instance the following passage:
> Of course plenty of states have some commercial cash cow to power their economies—Wall Street in New York or the entertainment industry in California. But those enterprises enrich their home states by creating products and services of value to consumers. Delaware, on the other hand, has come to its lucre at the direct expense of other states. It is simply a game of beggar-thy-neighbor.
A different angle on this could argue that Delaware saw the striking inefficiencies in having every state incorporate their companies separately, splitting case law, precedent, and laws on the books into fifty distinct and slightly different views on corporate law. They realized that if they could attract corporations to the state early, they could create a system by which they were the de-facto state for incorporation and thus for corporate law, creating long-term value for its constituents by bringing revenue and jobs to the state, all while bringing efficiency to the overall economy by defining the standards under which companies are run and lawsuits are settled. You might even call this not-unlike Wall Street as a centralization and standardization of how a certain type of business is constructed that brought value to the nation as a whole.