Editor’s Note: Made the first half of the Super Bowl that culminated a chaotic season that reflected our social chaos. It was the first professional sports I have watched in a year, but sadly only made it to the half of the game. There are several stories in the contest, but we will let them slide this morning. Arrias is working on something else this morning that provoked members in the editorial bullpen to look at the sheer number of things going on in the world around us. Sunny here this morning in Virginia’s Piedmont but cold.

– Vic

Corporate America?

In a recent article in a major periodical a reporter relayed the close workings between unions, politicos and corporations during the past year to prevent Mr. Trump from being re-elected last November. It’s a fascinating story and one suspects that there is a great deal more to be told; we shall, undoubtedly hear more in the next several months.

Apparently, these corporations, unions, and various government officials, acting in the most selfless, altruistic manner, to save our nation and our way of life, labored throughout the year to alter the electoral process and prevent the Mr Trump’s victory.

The story makes a point of how unusual it is that big business would be working with unions and various government functionaries who are normally the opposition of the corporation.

Hmmm… Would that it were so.

There are two myths at play here. The first is the well-groomed myth that “Big Business” is conservative; the second that the DotCom corporations have brought a new sense of social awareness to the nation and that that is a good thing.

First, this requires a couple of definitions: what do we mean by “big business,” and what do we mean by “conservative?”

Big business is a vague term at best, but the best way to define it is “industry leaders.” The big computer manufactures, the big car companies, the ones that everyone knows. The dictionary provides a vague definition of “large-scale corporate activities,” so we’re really back to “industry leaders,” or the “major companies” in any economic sector.

Conservative is also difficult to define, but the one championed by William F. Buckley was that spectrum of political thought that rejected “progress for the sake of progress,” that saw limited government as an intrinsic good, and believed stridently in the freedom of the individual. But there’s little in that definition that connects to how the word is used in the media.

The fact is that businesses through the years have always sought to establish closer relationships both with government and, if possible, with unions. The reason is simple: if a closer relationship can be established, the business isn’t surprised. Compromises can be worked out, deals can be made, and, eventually, the corporation can work with government regulators and with labor to establish a set of rules and associated costs that make competition that much more difficult. A good example of that is the auto industry in the 1970s.

Of course, this can come back to haunt you – the auto industry is, again, a good example. But this sort of thing breeds all sorts of situations that do not serve the republic. At a minimum, when corporations, government, and unions get too close, the end result is not only less competition and less innovation, the product starts to fall off in quality, even as prices go up. In the end, the consumer pays the price, literally and figuratively.

The second myth, of perhaps more recent creation, is the myth of the benefits of the socially aware corporation, socially virtuous executives acting “in our interest” – whether we asked them to or not.

The problem, of course, is that “socially aware,” “altruistic” executives aren’t elected, and they often have very limited and very narrow perspectives on what is really beneficial to the nation as a whole. Being a competent software engineer or accountant, or a leading management guru, doesn’t make you any more aware of how representative government is supposed to work. Nor does expertise in economics automatically provide them with any knowledge whatsoever of the follies of bad government through the ages.

Every single dictator and despot in history, no matter what title he carried, came in the end to believe that he had a particular insight into the “right” thing to do for his country. If that required rigged elections, or burning the Reichstag, or any of a host of other such actions, then it was completely justified.

The truth is that self-styled virtuous business tycoons, spreading vast wealth around to change the law in their image will, in the end, form an unholy alliance with regulators and legislators and in so doing will undermine the very essence of our representative government.

In the end, when business gets “into bed” with government, the government will start to set rules – always justified under the mantle of “the common good,” “protecting the rights of the poorest,” “preserving our freedoms” and “saving the nation” from wild economic times – and soon there is the de facto start of a centralized economy. And the plutocrats will obey – they always have. And why not? It guarantees profits.

And with the de facto centralized economy there will come a whole new set of rules, rules that will force the consumer – in whose name this has been done – to bend his behavior to those rules drafted by the centralized planners and their comrades in big business – who will use their wealth to try to get the rest of us to obey, and big labor – which will use their legislative access to force union membership and to squeeze small business.

There’s a name for this behavior; it’s called fascism.

Copyright 2021 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com