One of the major recent developments in American politics is the nasty divorce underway between the Republican Party and conservatives on one side and the Chamber of Commerce and big business on the other. What's causing the breakup? 🧵
One theory, advanced by @MichaelRStrain@AEI, is that American enterprise is the innocent victim here. Corporate leaders are merely: (1) standing up for civic responsibility, and (2) embracing cultural progressivism as a marketing tactic. bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
There's a contradiction here: corporations genuinely committed to civic responsibility would presumably shy away from promoting racially divisive ideology, delisting books, undermining democratically enacted laws, etc. The "responsibility" being exercised is rather selective...
Perhaps more importantly, the business behavior that agitates conservatives and damages the nation goes far beyond innocently standing up for values. Here are some of the issues that folks like @MichaelRStrain apparently have no problem with:
1. American corporations kowtow to Chinese censorship but gleefully criticize America. Hollywood rewrites scripts. Disney's ESPN axed coverage of Hong Kong. Nike declares itself "a brand that is of China and for China" while cancelling a shoe with the original American flag.
2. American corporations mistreat American workers. Companies like Disney make employees train their H1B-holding replacements. Amazon has badly broken HR systems that underpaid workers and denied them benefits. Efforts at union organizing face retaliation.
3. American corporations wield their economic power to undermine democratic processes, threatening secondary boycotts of businesses in states like Indiana, North Carolina, and Georgia to force repeal of duly enacted legislation.
4. American corporations abandon and offshore critical industries and technologies, weakening the nation's economy and national security. Intel outsourced chip production, Boeing offshored vital aerospace components, Google and others site AI research in Beijing.
5. American corporations use political criteria to censor conservative viewpoints. Amazon banned @EPPCdc president @RyanTAnd's book. Twitter and Facebook blocked news coverage of Hunter Biden just before the 2020 election.
6. American corporations promote racial polarization. Companies from Wal-Mart to AT&T to Raytheon "train" employees that America is a systemically racist society and instruct them to understand themselves and their relationships in terms of racial conflict.
7. American corporations gladly help China, but not America. Google refused to work with the U.S. DoD. McKinsey has a "public commitment to anti-racism" but advises Chinese state-owned enterprises. Tesla takes billions in U.S. subsidies and then shifts its export hub to Shanghai.
Long gone are the days of "what's good for our country is good for General Motors, and vice versa."
Big business routinely behaves in ways that damage the national interest and distort our democracy. Americans, conservative or otherwise, are rightly fed up and seeking remedies.
An Institute of American Enterprise should focus intently on bad big business behavior, and what it portends for the future of a well-functioning market democracy. What say you, @MichaelRStrain, might our @BizRoundtable friends have something to answer for as well?
[end]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/10 I say this out of respect, not disrespect, for Sohrab, whose analysis is always careful and thoughtful: This makes no sense at all. If the best effort at constructing a case from within an assumption of U.S. hegemony leaves logical holes this gaping, that era is truly over.
2/ First, Israel is conducting a campaign against a country that has orchestrated unending terrorism against it for decades and called for its destruction. It is not America's place to grant permission for such a campaign, to take responsibility for it, or to stand in its way.
3/ Not having responsibility for the campaign, the U.S. likewise does not have responsibility for the smoldering ruins that Israel may leave behind, no matter how much people rend their garments and complain. Yes, this requires a mindset change. So make it.
1/ In an especially fun bout of market fundamentalism yesterday, @MattHennessey @WSJopinion argued that markets "are governed by the laws of economics the way the physical world is governed by the laws of gravity." I love this for two reasons... wsj.com/opinion/jd-van…
2/ First, because it's disastrously inapt. Economics is nothing like physics. Its principles are not generated from repeatable experiments, nor do they hold consistently across space and time. Believing otherwise is a quite literal example of blind faith and fundamentalism.
3/ Second, though, it's perfect. Yes, the physical world is governed by the laws of gravity. But it is not governed only by the laws of gravity. Indeed, anyone who thought he could reliably predict the motion of bodies with knowledge only of gravity would be quite disappointed.
1/ Today's Understanding America, You're So Vain, You Probably Think This Post Is About You, takes a look at the bizarre social media reaction to this @FrankLuntz tweet and what it says about the blinkered innumeracy and elitism of reindustrialization's skeptics.
2/ The Rorschach test here is one separating people who can think rationally and empathetically about the wide range of opportunities their fellow citizens might pursue, and those who lack that basic capacity. @scottlincicome apparently falls in bucket 2.
@scottlincicome 3/ See, if 25% of respondents say they’d prefer a factory job to their current job, that suggests an enormous opportunity for improvement in many lives. But @gtconway3d thinks only people who themselves see a factory job as their best option should support more factory jobs.
Tough crowd, sore subject I guess. Deleting tweet and archiving it here. Only point I was trying to make is that I think comparative advantage mostly determines composition of trade, other factors drive level. I was curious how people would describe it. You didn't disappoint...
I particularly appreciated Alex's enthusiastic ALL CAPS confidence that comparative advantage explains the slave trade.
Thanks also to everyone who thinks richer countries always run deficits with poorer countries because the poorer countries can't afford to buy as much. I must have missed that chapter in Ricardo.
1/ If you don't like what Trump did on reciprocity, that's fine. But if you're claiming it's indecipherable, you're not trying very hard.
In February, in Understanding America, I explained exactly how this might look and why:
2/ "Some analysts have taken the threat of 'reciprocal tariffs' to mean literally holding a mirror up to the tariff regimes of other countries... there’s no reason to believe that’s what the administration is pursuing." understandingamerica.co/p/the-one-word…
3/ "Trump’s orders indicate a desire to assess the extent of imbalance in market access between the U.S. and each of its trading partners, and then use a tariff to counteract it."
1/ Some thoughts on how to understand the tariff kerfuffle, at the aptly named Understanding America.
To start with, you have to distinguish between four different uses for tariffs: 🧵
2/ Uses of tariffs:
#1: Funding. Tariffs can generate revenue.
#2: Decoupling. Tariffs can shift supply chains.
#3: Rebalancing. Tariffs can promote domestic production.
#4: Negotiating. Tariffs can provide powerful leverage.
3/ Notice that the first three uses of tariffs are fundamentally economic in nature and the policymaker’s goal should be to impose them in a stable and predictable way that minimizes economic costs domestically and creates confidence that they will remain for the long-term.