cmaukonen's picture

    Why Big Business supports right wing economic policy.

    By cmaukonen on Sat, 10/30/2010 - 5:55pm |

    Kevin Drum at Mother Jones poses some interesting questions regarding Big Business.

    But the business community has long demonstrated a remarkable ability to value ideology over actual results. Think about it: if congressional Republicans had been in charge over the past couple of years, there would have been no TARP, no stimulus, and no auto rescue. In other words, the economy would be in truly harrowing shape and businesses would be failing left and right. What's more, simple self interest dictates that going forward the business community ought to be clamoring for monetary easing and more fiscal stimulus, something that Republicans are dead set against. But they aren't. In fact, they're planning to vote in massive numbers for Republicans. They're basically content with anemic economic growth.

    I'm not quite sure what accounts for this. Opposing regulation I get. No one wants to be regulated. Ditto for higher taxes, even if they're pretty modest. But why do corporate chieftans oppose true national healthcare even though it would almost certainly make their lives easier and make them more globally competitive? Why do they oppose cap-and-trade even though its effects are modest and the alternative is more intrusive EPA regulations? Why do they oppose fiscal stimulus even though it would spur the economy and be good for business?

    However I think I have an answer. Business in this country is no longer in the business of...well...business.  That is, business in this country is only concerned with short term profits and they do not give a wet slap about how they get them.  Since very little of Big Business is manufacturing consumer products, it is unconcerned about whether or not the citizens have money or health care or anything else.  So it is perfectly logical for Big Business to choose an economic policy that benefits them personally and screws everyone else.

     

    Comments

    From your title all I could think of was:

    Does the Pope eliminate in the Vatican?

    There is more quid pro quo with repubs.

    Of course what is biz?

    A flower shop is biz.

    But there are tiers and the top tiers want to make money for the management and give out enough to the bigger shareholders so they wont complain.

    the end


    by Richard Day on Sat, 10/30/2010 - 6:44pm

    "What's more, simple self interest dictates that going forward the business community ought to be clamoring for monetary easing and more fiscal stimulus"

    - Most business people are implicitly or explicitly adherents of Austrian economics - creative destruction. They don't believe in printing money and deficit spending as economic policy. Now one can think Austrians are morons, but it's not like the neo-Keynesians have exactly covered themselves in glory over the last 30 years.

    "But why do corporate chieftans oppose true national healthcare "

    - I'm pretty sure they don't. They just think, rightly or wrongly, that it would be more efficient if it were done in accordance with free-market principles.

    "Why do they oppose cap-and-trade even though its effects are modest and the alternative is more intrusive EPA regulations?"

    - the assumption that the alternative is more intrusive EPA regs is just mistaken. The alternative is that the new GOP majority defund the EPA and force them to drop regulating greenhouse gasses.

     

    As for your remarks, C., Drum seems to be concerned with Business in general, not just big business. The two are very different entities. Big Business is not 'American' in any sense of the term, not the shareholders, not their market - the S&P gets more than half its revenue from outside the US, nor in terms of where they produce their goods. Much of big business is net importing into the states. So big business has no interests in common with the general population of the US. the US business community in general is a different thing. Small and medium sized non-corporate businesses, mostly. And they are suffering, not necessarily as much as the middle class, but they are suffering. Why they choose to do so does, imo, require some sort of explanation other than self-interest.


    by Obey on Sat, 10/30/2010 - 7:48pm

    Robert Reich would like to know as well.

    Many Tea Partiers similarly recoil from global institutions and agreements. Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann, leader of the House’s Tea Party caucus, calls the Group of 20 summit “one short step” away from “one world government,” and suggests America withdraw from international economic organizations. “I don’t want the US to be in a global economy where our economic future is bound to that of Zimbabwe” she says. And a higher proportion of Tea Partiers oppose free trade than does the American population in general. In a recent WSJ/NBC poll, 61 percent of respondents who characterized themselves as Tea Partiers thought trade was bad for America.

    Under normal times ideas like these wouldn’t gain much public traction. Why are they now? Because of the continuing effects of the Great Recession. History has shown that people threatened by losses of jobs, wages, homes, and savings are easy prey for demagogues who turn those fears into anger directed at major institutions of a society, as well as individuals and minorities who become easy scapegoats – immigrants, foreign traders, particular religious groups. Were it not for their ongoing economic stresses, Americans wouldn’t be receptive to abolishing the Federal Reserve and the IRS, or believe government and big business were conspiring against them, or turn nativist and isolationist.

    Business leaders should be standing up to the tea party. And they should be actively supporting policies to relieve the economic stresses that fuel it. Their silence in both regards is not only bad for business; it threatens the stability of our economic and political system.


    by cmaukonen on Sat, 10/30/2010 - 9:32pm

    The message we are continually bombarded with is the fact that we must accept less regulation, lower wages, and no safety nets so we can "compete in the global marketplace." If we gotta' compete with Myanmar, then we must become Myanmar. We're in a race to the bottom to find the least common denominator in all things that limit profits of the multi-national corporations and the relatively wealthy few who own them.

    The corporate support of the right wing economic policy begins to make incredible sense if the objective is to turn these United States into just another third world country under the control of the wealthy elite. And, quite sadly, I can see such a future for us all given today's political realities relative to the path we've been on these last thirty years.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 10/31/2010 - 4:14am

    All this to justify their greed, intellectual dormancy and lack of humane compassion. Instead of espousing to become one of the world's leaders in quality production, these insidious sniveling clowns would rather gut the country for their own personal piggishness. A pox on them I say.


    by cmaukonen on Sun, 10/31/2010 - 10:28am

    From just a purely semantic point of view, it's interesting to note that these changes started occurring about the same time we switched from being "Personnel" to "Human Resources."

    Also, you can read more about "Human Resources" here.

    We need to redefine the debate, and we need to do it NOW! Class War is a reality, and our side is not only losing but hasn't even begun to fight. Let this election be our wake-up call.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 10/31/2010 - 1:55pm

    When business became more about manipulation of assets and increasing the bottom line at the expense of the employees, and less about the producing of products, is when America's decline began.


    by MrSmith1 on Sun, 10/31/2010 - 12:38pm

    Latest Comments