Who Benefits? (Guess)

The other day I had a conversation with a guy who I would characterize as a "sane conservative". What I mean by that term is that he wasn't spouting conspiracy theories or bigoted hatred, just some old school conservative Republican positions regarding government regulation and fiscal responsibility. We were having a civil conversation, agreeing on some things and politely disagreeing on others when he brought up Trump. He mentioned that many in big business were looking forward to Trump being back in office, since he is for getting rid of regulatory overreach and is generally business friendly. I responded that that's a traditional Republican policy position that they could have had with some other Republican instead of  a dementia-ridden, hate-filled, ignorant self-dealing lunatic.  And that's the (or one of the) problems with the heads of large corporations - they're willing to accept the disruption to the economy and the erosion of freedom, the gradual conversion of our democracy to an authoritarian state if it will swell their bank accounts and inflate their stock valuation. 

Regulations have to be balanced. They can't be so restrictive that businesses cannot operate, nor can they be so toothless that businesses will do harm. Regulations often cost money to implement, and costs, any costs, reduce profit. All other things being equal, a business's primary goal is to maximize profit, and anything that stands in the way of that goal is an enemy to be resisted. Fair enough, but government's job isn't to maximize profit, but, at least according to the Constitution, its job is to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty". Government is not in the business of business, its goal is not to be profitable, but to facilitate a society where all can flourish. If that's the socialism or communism that some rail against, your argument isn't with me, it's with the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution. 

Profit-seeking has it's place in a free nation. Profit is the reward and motivation for taking risks. Government will often subsidize research and development for things that are necessary but not profitable, but so many inventions are the result of risk taking. Those who took the financial risks should benefit when their risks pay off, but not at the expense of the "general welfare". Many of our largest and most profitable businesses not only derive their riches from a return on their investment, but on government largess. Most states have incentives programs that reward companies for locating their factories, or data centers or headquarters to their cities. In Nebraska we have a several incentives programs, most which reward companies for doing what they would have done anyway, and are subject to manipulation by smart accountants. In one program we give the owner of a building being restored to historical standards a credit worth 20% of construction costs. Included in construction costs are developer fees, which can be as high as a quarter of total costs. In many cases the building owner is the developer, so they are paying a $1 million effectively to themselves and receiving a $200,000 tax credit for moving $1 million from one ledger to another. Good work if you can get it. The reason most incentives programs exist is because the next state over has them. 

It's becoming abundantly clear, even to the minds addled by MAGA promises, that the only people who will benefit from Trump's second term will be the people who are already rich. People in his inner circle are already floating ideas to increase certain types of immigration, the kind that benefits big business, despite the rhetoric about immigration being bad for America. We've heard much about how the tariffs Trump wants to enact will increase inflation, but surely Trump's billionaire friends will be able to secure waivers. The billionaires will land on their feet no matter what happens. 

And this brings me back to my point about gutting regulations being a traditional Republican position. The difference between the old guard Republicans and Trump is that the old guard understood that balance had to be maintained. They actually listened to economists, and even if they did prioritize their wealthy donors, they understood how everything was interconnected, and certainly understood who paid for tariffs. A Nikki Haley, or even a Ron DeSantis administration would shape up much differently than the upcoming Trump presidency, even if many of the basic policies would be the same. Eliminating regulations and tightening up immigration enforcement would likely still be priorities, but it's doubtful that there would be the threats of retaliation against political opponents or speculation about buying Greenland or taking over the Panama Canal. Yes, both Haley and DeSantis have sucked up to Trump, and DeSantis in particular has attempted to out MAGA Trump in the way he has governed in Florida, but tellingly they both campaigned hard against him in the Republican primaries when they thought there was a chance of taking him down. Despite the proliferation of Trump sycophants in all levels of the Republican Party, a powerless Trump (or a deceased Trump) would restore some semblance of sanity, even if the core goals are largely unchanged. 

Now? We're just dealing with chaos for chaos' sake.