Skip to main content

Why I Am Not Pro-Business

Most who consider themselves conservative, even many with libertarian leanings, are comfortable with describing themselves as pro-business.

Not me.

Don’t get me wrong. Just because I’m not pro-business doesn’t mean I’m anti-business. I’m pro-free enterprise, but that’s different from being pro-business.

Chambers of Commerce across the nation are pro-business. They are established to represent their various business members, with large corporations usually the most influential amongst their numbers. Chambers of Commerce almost always favor measures that subsidize businesses, give special tax breaks to businesses, or exempt businesses from regulation, even when these measures favor only specific industries.

Here is one example. Pro-business interests favor special discretionary funds at the state and local levels that are used to pay businesses to locate within the government’s jurisdiction. Often called “closing funds,” they allow the ruling class to take credit for creating jobs. Businesses that benefit from these payoffs rarely change their plans as a result of the payoffs. But, because different jurisdictions simultaneously bid for the same business projects, big corporations that are the objects of officials’ affections can pit communities and states against each other to maximize the payoff in the jurisdiction where the corporations intended to locate all along. That means closing funds, at best, make no economic difference at all.

The pro-business crowd also loves to shower taxpayer money on Hollywood, professional sports, tourism venues, renewable energy, and high-tech, among others. These are all popular because, somewhere, one of these industries has grown fast and driven a community’s high-paying jobs and economic development. The pro-business crowd likes to sell the idea that with the right government incentive every community can get in on the same economic boom. It’s usually an easy sell since the jobs they supposedly create are easy to see. The damage, though, goes unseen. Unfortunately, subsidizing an attempt to develop an existing, already-booming industry in a place where it has never been before is like buying stocks when prices are high; the opportunity is actually already gone.

But it’s worse than that. The value people place on goods and services is subjective. Much (probably most, but not all) of the cost of producing goods and services is objective, determined by technology and physical laws. A complex interplay occurs in a free-enterprise market system that transmits information through prices to balance the allocation of resources (always limited, compared to human wants) so that the most highly-valued goods and services are provided (voluntarily, and without central direction), taking cost into consideration. When politicians step in and artificially lower costs for favored industries or businesses, the balance free enterprise produces is upset. Resources are misallocated. Income and wealth is reduced compared to what it could have been. And although the U.S. is a long way from becoming a Venezuela, that country illustrates what happens when politics interrupts market mechanisms.

Being pro-business grants license to policymakers at all levels of government to act like they are in favor of free markets when they are actually baby socialists, thinking they can centrally plan an economy into prosperity. They enact laws and policies that actually make a mess of things. A mayor in Goodyear, Arizona once told me that if they took care of the big businesses (granted them special privileges), small business would take care of itself. This was likely a common refrain at whatever mayors’ conferences she’d attended. The idea is that when big businesses hire lots of people, there are plenty of scraps for small businesses, like local restaurants and car repair, to get along. Of course, the Goodyear mayor likely would not hesitate to favor big corporations behind various restaurant and car repair franchises that compete with truly local small businesses. The Goodyear mayor’s thinking discourages the organic innovation and economic development that made big corporations grow from once-small enterprises to the behemoths they’ve become.

Pro-business policies are inevitably crony policies. They cement in place a privileged few, create inequality before the law, and contribute to social unrest when people gain a sense that some count for more than others in our government. So no, I’m not pro-business; I’m proudly pro-free enterprise, where the economic playing field is level, and government favors no one.

Byron Schlomach is Director of the 1889 Institute and can be reached at bschlomach@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each ep...
Read more

Present Reforms to Keep the Ghost of State Questions Past from Creating Future Headaches

Oklahoma, like many western states, allows its citizens to directly participate in the democratic process through citizen initiatives and referendums. In a referendum, the legislature directs a question to the people — usually to modify the state constitution, since the legislature can change statutes itself. An initiative requires no legislative involvement, but is initiated by the people via signature gathering, and can be used to modify statute or amend the constitution. Collectively, the initiatives and referendums that make it onto the ballot are known as State Questions.   Recently, there have been calls to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. At least two proposals are being discussed. One would diversify the signature requirement by demanding that a proportional amount of signatures come from each region of the state. The other would require a sixty percent majority to adopt a constitutional amendment rather than the fifty percent plus one currently in place. ...
Read more

I Abstain: Why I Refuse to Vote in Judicial Retention Elections

Over a million Oklahomans voted in the recent November 3rd election. For most, the presidential race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is what drove them to the polls. However, some were likely confused when they reached the bottom portion of their ballot marked “Judicial Retention Elections.” What are judicial retention elections? Every two years, certain judges are placed on the ballot for a simple yes/no retention vote. These elections stem from Oklahoma’s   judicial selection method , and ask voters whether they want to keep, or retain, certain judges. Elections are staggered so judges only face retention every six years. Many claim that the merit selection method is a more sophisticated, apolitical judicial selection method than the federal model or the partisan election model, but in reality it is   much worse   than either of the two. In essence, the retention vote was a patronizing attempt to make “merit” selection more palatable to   voters back in the...
Read more

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims

The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.   A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus c...
Read more