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

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...
Read more

Oklahoma Is OK, but Seriously, That’s Not OK

The Americans at the table, negotiating a business deal, ask one of their number, “You can speak Dutch?” He replies, “I’m OK.” With his fellow Americans looking doubtful, he proceeds to mistranslate what they want him to say to their Dutch counterparts. The “OK” translator tells the Dutch that the Americans really need a hug, when he was supposed to tell them they really need the deal. With that, the AT&T commercial ends as one of the Dutch negotiators gives an American a hug with the announcer saying, “When just OK is not OK.” There are several of these commercials, each with a different scenario, in which, indeed, just OK is not OK. And every time I see one of these commercials I think of the license plates that were once so common – “ Oklahoma is OK. ” As someone who works to develop policy suggestions intended to make Oklahoma better, and hopefully, the best that Oklahoma can be, it often seems that slogan – Oklahoma is OK – gets in the way. The fact is, in most r...
Read more

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more