[nrjdhsbsid]

Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business. I know the whole tech crowd wants him to crash and burn but the stock market rising is no surprise to me.

Whether it's worth the damage done to the poor and the environment is yet to be seen.

[celticninja]

I think many people dont want him to crash and burn. I think he was a terrible choice for president same as I think brexit was a terrible idea, but that's what we have got so I hope I am wrong on both counts. Why? Because I have to live in a world with both, so I don't wish for me to be right and everything to be shit, I hope I was wrong and everything is sunshine and fucking roses.

[sgustard]

He's already threatened businesses with penalties if they build plants outside the US. He's going after free trade agreements that help a lot of companies build products more cheaply and access overseas markets. Sure, protectionism may help some businesses avoid competition for a while, but it can't help them in the long run as they become obsolete. This kind of interference in the free market makes it hard to call him pro-business.

[nrjdhsbsid]

What he is doing is largely in reponse to increasing protectionism by other countries. Examples:

US "web" companies must now store EU data in Europe. Any foreign company that wants to compete in Europe needs a European office and datacentres now. Good luck getting European customers for a US startup now.

China is notoriously protectionist. They manipulate their currency exchange rate, engage in market dumping to hurt competitors in other countries, require foreign firms to have a Chinese "partner" which is more like a parasite that steals money and IP.

There's many more examples. To a certain degree the US government has a job of protecting US businesses just like it protects it's citizens.

For important resources like steel and rare earth elements, US businesses have been driven out not because it's so expensive but because foreign countries heavily subsidize the industry and create artificially low prices. "Bringing the jobs back" will work but only if the US govt retaliates with import tariffs or subsidies of its own

[mikeryan]

Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business.

I think this might generally be correct however he seems to be more vehemently "Pro American Worker" and so far when that collides with his "Pro Business" stance the worker is currently winning. Attempting to get businesses to repatriate jobs is not necessarily a "pro-business" stance.

[crisnoble]

What decisions has he made that are pro worker? I have heard that he has pushed to restart pipeline construction (pro business), freeze fedral hiring (anti worker), and kill ACA (anti worker, pro business).

[crusso]

The pipeline will create jobs and decrease fuel costs (pro business and worker). Freezing federal hiring will decrease the tax and regulatory load shouldered by everyone (pro business and worker). The ACA was shown to have been sold to the workers based upon lies regarding costs and access to their doctors. It's imploding under its own weight.

Further, if the ACA benefits anyone, it benefits people who don't work but receive subsidies. So getting rid of it is a decided plus for workers.

[crisnoble]

Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs, so is in no way pro worker. Employees of the government are workers too. The ACA benefits my wife who was able to quit her job to start a business without worrying about being denied healthcare for her pre-existing condition. The ACA benefits all workers in businesses who now are required to offer healthcare plans which meet a minimum standard. Workers will not benefit once businesses can go back to deciding that offering a group health insurance plan is an optional benefit.

[jakeogh]

"Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs"

Jobs in government, not in private industry. Would you rather we all go on the gov payroll?

[breatheoften]

Since we are speaking in ridiculous hyperbole -- if everyone worked for private industry and no one had the option to work for the government -- what do you expect would be the effect on the distribution of wage and labor benefits?

[crisnoble]

All I was trying to say that the current round of executive actions are being taken for businesses and without regards to effects on workers, but you put it more succinctly.

[nrjdhsbsid]

Federal jobs are a net negative for the economy. Private jobs are funded by profit from selling products. Federal jobs are funded by taking money from everyone to pay for them. Freezing federal hiring should have no short term effect on the economy, long term it will mean less government services but lower taxes.

I heavily support the pre-existing condition clause in the ACA but the rest of it is a clusterfuck. The way it's designed inscentivizes only the riskiest people to join groups and everyone else to go without insurance.

The ACA's "profit model" is also greatly skewed towards overcharging the young and healthy. Our oldest generation is the most wealthy population group and our youngest are reletively one of the poorest in US history... As a young healthy male my insurance cost has gone from $55 to over $300 a month due to the ACA. I recently just ditched insurance because that's too much money to pay for a service I get hardly any benefit from.

It's yet another money siphon built by the boomers to fuck over the mellenials.

[crusso]

Government jobs are paid for through taxation. Taxation is a form of theft and at best should be considered a necessary evil for running the government that everyone agreed to - as outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution never allowed for the massive Federal work force we have. It's a bit of a leviathan that needs to be reduced.

Sure, the ACA has some short-term, especially anecdotal benefits. I'm glad your wife was able to use it productively while it was available to her... but the ACA is loaded up with give-aways paid for with other people's money - so it's unsurprising that there are some who think it's a good deal for them.

If I give you my neighbor's big-screen TV, I'm sure you'd have a great story about getting a big-screen TV. But you aren't the only party in that transaction.

Long term, the system set up by the ACA is collapsing. Insurers are fleeing from the markets because they don't make economic sense without ever increasing government subsidies to the industry.

Worse, the big promise of the ACA was that it would lower costs for everyone without changing their doctor-patient relationships. Those were lies. Not just mistakes, but pre-meditated and documented lies.

[nrjdhsbsid]

The ACA just piled onto the clusterfuck we already have. At a federal level we've already got Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and now the ACA. Within medicare we have "parts" A through D that offer a bunch of intermingled benefits. Even when someone has medicare it's a huge fucking pain in the ass to figure out which "part" to bill and if you send it to the wrong one they won't pay.

Many states have their own programs as well.

It's a gaint fucking mess they need to cut the shit and just throw everyone on Medicaid

[shagmin]

I believe ACA mainly benefits people who work but don't make enough to pay for healthcare insurance. Medicaid would be for those who don't work at all (or make way too little).

I think looking at it as a zero sum thing is framing it the wrong way anyway though.

[crisnoble]

I agree that the pipeline will decrease fuel costs, and provide temporary construction jobs, however the net will be that the oil businesses will increase their profits and need fewer workers to transport the oil to market. Until workers can share equally in the profits of a business, I think it is dishonest to equate removing regulatory "burden" as pro business. Trickle down economics effects simply do not happen.

[crusso]

"Until workers can share equally in the profits of a business"

Sharing equally in the productivity of the society is just communism. It fails every time because people have varying levels of productivity but when you compensate everyone equally no matter what effort they apply, you get a tragedy of the commons situation.

Communism has been tried many times and has never been shown to be good for workers.

[rconti]

All of the pro-manufacturing-in-the-US, anti-import stuff.

[crisnoble]

I have yet to hear about any movement on those campaign talking points.

[rconti]

Do threats not count as movement? What about threats that inspire (alleged) action? There has been quite a bit of both.

Does it have to be an executive action?

Traditionally, the President wasn't the one creating the laws to begin with. So if Congress passes a law and Trump signs it, is it his action then?

[PacketPaul]

He had a big meeting with manufacturers two days ago and is incentivising US manufacturing through the threat of tariffs.

[harryjo]

He's promoting _jobs_, but also promoting pollution and cuts to healthcare, wages, and job safety.

[rconti]

Is there anything more statist than wanting to pick and choose which businesses do well and which ones crash and burn? Taking out one's personal vendettas on businesses on a whim?

I take that back, the 2nd part is beyond even statism.

[PopsiclePete]

As a business owner, of a large multi-national company heavily invested in various non-physical IP-heavy "product", say, Disney, wouldn't Trump's move to pull the US out of the TPP not make me shit my pants with fear for the future?

One of the key provisions of the TPP was to force Asian countries to adhere to strict US copyright laws. And that makes sense, since IP companies' products are what the US really exports on makes money on - nobody is buying US fridges and ovens in large quantities. And if you can't get China to respect IP laws, then you have no future there.

Maybe I'm completely confused about the TPP, but I'm frankly pretty surprised the market's reaction so far has been one giant "meh".

[nrjdhsbsid]

This sounds great but the TPP didn't include China, by far the biggest IP violator on the planet. The TPP was more of a giant conglomeration of things that various large companies in different countries wanted.

The text of the agreement was drawn up as secretively as possible because everybody knew the only point was to help the fortune 500 and fuck over everyone else.

I'm glad it's dead.

[potatosoup]

> Whether it's worth the damage done to the poor

Like what? If anything, more jobs instead of more and more social programs would do a lot to actually get people to a decent livelihood...

[vkou]

America today manufactures far more goods then the America of 1970 did. Yet, American manufacturing is dead as a source of jobs.

Even if the factories come back, the jobs won't.

[norea-armozel]

It's more that he's pro-business-he-likes. If you happen to be a company focused on renewable energy or nuclear fusion he's likely to side with old energy companies and try to throw as many regulatory hurdles in front of your ventures to ensure his friends win. All in the name of free market capitalism of course (/s).

[potatosoup]

Not strictly true, or he wouldn't be working with Elon Mask, for example. [1] However what's certain is that he wants to achieve US independence from Middle Eastern oil so as to stop enriching Saudi princes.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...

[norea-armozel]

Trust me, when your Sec of State pick is an Exxon-Mobil executive, there's no energy independence in the cards. Those vultures want to ensure they get a monopoly on oil regardless of the country in question. That's just how they roll.

[cryptoz]

> Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business.

No he is definitely not. Trump is anti-business and he makes that very clear. His campaign promises and actions since election are super clear that he is pro-his-wealth and not pro-business.

A pro-business politician would raise taxes on the wealthy, provide tax cuts for the middle class, increase the corporate tax rate, improve immigration so that more people could come in to the country, address massive business risks like climate change with a serious face, improve healthcare for everyone in nation, etc. A pro-business politician would want a healthy and wealthy middle class, a stable climate, and good tax structure to incentivize smart people to come here and build useful things. More businesses are more likely to succeed in a society that is healthy, resourceful with its environment, and with enough wealth shared that income inequality does not destabilize the structure.

Trump is the opposite of being pro-business. Trump is not fiscally conservative or pro-business at all - the very idea that he is would be considered an "alternative fact" - a lie.

[ovidnis]

Could you explain why any of what you say a 'pro-business' politician should do is pro-business? I think a lot of people would disagree with you on those points.

[cryptoz]

Okay, sure. The first place is to immediately dispel the idea that Republicans have ever been about being "pro-business" - and the second place will be that Trump specifically is not.

It's simple Tragedy of the Commons at first. Republicans / Republican Presidents are generally pro-greed and pro-riches, not pro-business, and those are different things. What you want in a good business environment is not achieved with Republican policies. This can be seen with the past few presidents - good economic times and growth with Democrat policies, and poor economic times and decline with Republicans.

Specifics.

> A pro-business politician would raise taxes on the wealthy, provide tax cuts for the middle class, increase the corporate tax rate

Henry Ford is the good example here of showing why this is pro-business. Give your country a stable, wealthy middle class (pay your auto-workers more, a lot more), and then they will be able to buy your products and your company will thrive. Roads will be built for your cars to drive on, with those taxes!

Wealthy people are important in a capitalistic society, but income inequality and extreme wealth present dangers, not useful things. Income inequality will catch up with the business as the middle class fades and doesn't buy their products.

Want a pro-business environment? Increase corporate taxes to fund schools and education and infrastructure so that more people will grow up healthy and wealthy and wanting to buy things.

> Improve immigration so that more people could come in to the country

Is this really a debate, especially here? Most of the smart people in the world who can create wealth and businesses do NOT live in the USA. If they wanted to live here, or did live here, that would be great.

> Address massive business risks like climate change with a serious face

The climate is changing, and it's going to kill a lot of people that could have been buying your products. It's going to displace hundreds of millions of families and settlements. Food production and distribution is going to be wildly affected. Basic things that should be stable in a business environment will not be stable. Climate change is the biggest RISK for corporate profits in the world (though right now you could also see it as an opportunity - if you recognize that it needs to be addressed).

> improve healthcare for everyone in nation

Again is this really a debate? Isn't it obvious that healthy people will be better for business? Do you want your customer base to be dying? Or your employees worried about disease? That's not useful for business.

[smileysteve]

> increase the corporate tax rate,

A number of economists disagree with you.

* Opaque

* Consumer paid

* Subject to Perversion through Deductions / Inversions

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/abolish-the-corpo...

[crusso]

Your list is largely comparable to what one would see as a list of goals from someone sympathetic to European style socialism.

And yet the USA is the dominant economy in the world. How do you square that reality with your claim of what a "pro-business politician" would do?

[cryptoz]

Sure, I wrote out a big answer just above.

[crusso]

You wrote rationalizations for the policies you mentioned, but you didn't address my point that the real world example of the economic dominance of the USA would be evidence that you're incorrect.

You'd think that if your policies were good for business, countries that had adopted those policies would be the most economically successful.

[shagmin]

Comparing countries with such distinct histories, geography, culture, etc., is futile.

We could very well owe the current dominance of the US due to the unfolding of events in World War 2. Aside from that, there are many countries that could never have the dominance the US has just due to the difference in population alone. An economy based on a domestic market of 300 million people is always going to have some advantages (and disadvantages) compared to one with 3 million people, even if those 3 million people are better off on average in every measurable way.

So many other variables...