Obama's Criminalization of Business

A big part of the issue is that the population has become more anti-business of late due to bank bailouts and low corporate taxation. The corporate tax rate (using actual taxes paid, not statuatory rate) is at a record low. When people compare that to their own situation (tax rate nowhwhere near a recrod low) it is not surprising that they conclude business is being given an unfair advantage to the tune of hundreds of $billions annually. I say fix the tax system (cut loopholes basically) and that will restore a sense of fairness - at which point the population will be more willing to help business in other areas.

The problem with Republicans taking that tactic is that they supported Dodd-Frank and many other regulations. The Heritage Foundation publishes an article on this every year, previously in March, but in October last year. Republicans are supposedly the party of small government, but there's little correlation between which party is in charge and the number of new regulations per year. 2010's regulations were mostly related to the EPA. We'll have to wait and see about 2011.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/red-tape-rising-obamas-torrent-of-new-regulation

I agree that talking about the administration's hostility toward business is a good tack. It puzzles why the Republican's knee-jerk reaction to being accused of being in the pocket of business has been to talk about business as if it is some monolithic thing or as if it is somehow a separate actor on the stage. In this way they fall into the trap laid by liberals: Big bad business must be controlled. Why don't they talk about the fact that if we really cared about the little guy we would try to *improve* the climate for businesses of all sizes, shapes, and flavors for it is businesses that provide jobs, it is businesses that provide the things we buy, eat, ride in, consume. You cannot be for the common man and be against business and stay logically consistent. Most of the jobs in the country are in businesses (at least as long as we keep working at keeping government small). Make life tough for them and you make life tough for employees.

Also, liberals talk as if a dollar of profit earned by corporations is somehow lost to the common man. Where do they think that money ends up? Stuffed under a rich man's mattress? Not likely. They spend it. They spend it on things made by companies that employ the common man. The money gets recirculated back into the economy and in to the pockets of the common man.

And another thing, it is not a zero sum game ... but I'll stop here.

Seems those executives don't have to do business with the government if they don't like the terms. The government, as a purchaser of goods and services, has the right to refuse to do business with someone. And if they're ripping people off, or violating the law, then charge 'em.

"When people fear that their investments will be for naught because they won't be allowed to operate, that has a chilling effect on investment."

Not that I disagree, but Krugman, et. al. have been arguing that businesses are not holding back on investment due to any government "chilling" factor, pointing to the fact that non-residential, private fixed investment has been going up.

How does this play with your argument? Have we not yet seen the full force of "the chill"? My thought is that there should have been a larger bounce in fixed investment given the low base from which we were starting.

[Comments removed for supplying false email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring your comments. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog and EconTalk.--Econlib Ed.]

I am both a Republican and a business guy and this argument is a dead loser.

People of all political persuasions throughout the middle and lower classes are convinced that Wall Street looted the country, corporate executives get bonuses for destroying jobs and looting pension plans, and that neither the Bush or Obama administration has done much about this.

The evidence appears such that the folks out here are correct.

If the GOP tries this argument it will be a spectacular failure. People do read their 401(k) account statements.

The AP story you linked to is about punishing people who commit fraud or whose companies repeatedly commit fraud.

Is that hostility to business or just hostility to fraud?

This is a complete winner of an argument. One last step, though. You need to link the anti-business climate to the unemployment rate. If businesses are afraid to invest and expand due to uncertainty in regulations and the tax code for that matter, then businesses are not going to hire at a rate that will bring down the unemployment rate. Businesses hire people. If you cripple businesses you cripple hiring.