[microcolonel]

I've lived in Canada my whole life, but I'm also a born U.S. citizen.

I feel hopeful about the outcome of the election. I'm interested to see what can happen with an effective reset of corporate sponsorship in the highest seat of government. The nice side effect of businesses not believing that he could become president, is that they didn't have as much time to buy favours.

The proposed rules for regulatory bodies (one in, two out) could considerably reduce the financial and emotional cost of doing business in the U.S. and perhaps finally undo some long-standing pay-for-play regulations. As it stood, I would have felt terrified and uncertain if I were to start a business in the U.S. one year ago.

I don't think Donald Trump is necessarily any better of a person than the other candidates; but I think he has a better chance of doing good by accident. The alternatives seemed like they were trying to trick the U.S. into paying for their expensive lifestyles in spite of the consequences to the public.

[yesbabyyes]

I feel hopeful about the outcome of the election. I'm interested to see what can happen with an effective reset of corporate sponsorship in the highest seat of government. The nice side effect of businesses not believing that he could become president, is that they didn't have as much time to buy favours.

Secretary of State: Exxon's chairman and CEO

Secretary of the Treasury: Goldman Sachs' CIO

Secretary of Commerce: The "King of Bankruptcy"

Secretary of Labor: CEO of Hardee's

Secretary of Education: From the Amway/Blackwater family

I could go on, but pray tell: What would be the point of buying favours when you are in the position of doling them out?

[shard972]

> I could go on, but pray tell: What would be the point of buying favours when you are in the position of doling them out?

I would say that your question is a loaded one, one that assumes the worst of each of the people you listed. That they are all corrupt and would put their own businesses above all else.

A question that I don't see asked often (and when it is the answer isn't very apparent) is who else would be better suited?

Considering the Obama administration was heavily weighted toward academia and political establishment figures, something which Trump campaigned hard against, who else would you pick other than the biggest business leaders?

[microcolonel]

There is a huge difference between the face of Exxon being secretary of state, and the secretary of state secretly representing Exxon.

It is a lot easier to tell when the CEO of Exxon is being transparently preferential to Exxon, than it is to say for sure that the secretary of state is being opaquely preferential.

And even if he can manage to slip Exxon-preferential policy through without rejection, I would argue that the United States of Exxon is far better for Americans than the United States of Saudi Oil Money. That's what you got with the last Secretary of State.

[CamperBob2]

Funny you should mention the Saudis. They're about the only ones who are still being granted entry visas.

You've been had.

[microcolonel]

The list of countries which preclude visas for the next 90 days was compiled by the previous Secretary of State.

[CamperBob2]

Sorry, my mistake, I wasn't aware that Trump was required to pay the previous Secretary of State any mind.

He was elected to do better.

[microcolonel]

I'm impressed when any new president avoids doing worse.

[Oletros]

> I'm interested to see what can happen with an effective reset of corporate sponsorship in the highest seat of government

I think that until now it is exactly the contrary you say

> The proposed rules for regulatory bodies (one in, two out) could considerably reduce the financial and emotional cost of doing business in the U.S.

And this is not in favour of the corporate sponsorship, is it?

I suppose outing all the evil environment regulations is very good for corporations and business but how about the actual people?

> I don't think Donald Trump is necessarily any better of a person than the other candidates; but I think he has a better chance of doing good by accident.

You seem to have a very specific definition of good. It only applies to corporations

[microcolonel]

I don't appreciate that you cropped my quote regarding regulations, but I'll address your statement.

Regulations are actively campaigned for by large businesses to create supply-side pressure (fewer, or no, new companies can meet the basic regulatory requirements of your business, therefore you control more of the market with more certainty).

If you want to talk about effective environmental regulations for people, we could start with strict liability for waste dumping. It took all too much time for Dow Chemical to see any pressure for water contamination scandals, and they still haven't faced much. The other major environmental case I can remember is U.S. EPA versus BMW, but that one is clearly preferential. If it were a U.S. car manufacturer, the penalties would be less dire with near certainty.

As for your last point, I'm sure you see the folly in it. Without getting too far into it, I'd like to point out that I gain nothing from the hegemony of established businesses. There's no reason to imagine that I'm out to make their lives easier.

[jacquesm]

> I'm interested to see what can happen with an effective reset of corporate sponsorship in the highest seat of government.

This isn't that, it is rather the opposite.

[microcolonel]

If you're thinking that there are more corporate ties to the Trump administration than there would have been to the Clinton administration, I can only encourage you to reconsider. On top of corporate ties, there are even preferential ties to foreign governments.

[jacquesm]

I'm merely noting that it isn't a reset, no need to insult me.

[microcolonel]

Fair enough, I've softened the language a bit.