[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...