From the annals of both-sidesism, the Chamber of Commerce says, “We have two presidential candidates who are anti-trade.” Not quite and not really. Bloomberg:
Let’s see. Trump wants a 60% duty on Chinese products as well as an across the board 10% tariff on goods from any country. Harris doesn’t propose new tariffs, but she doesn’t plan on pursuing new free trade deals on the top of the ones we already have.
Um, those aren’t equivalent. Trump’s plan is highly inflationary (in addition to giving the middle class a substantial tax hike). Harris’ plan amounts to no change in policy.
Wiki notes that, “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claims to represent three million businesses, but this claim is often contested. It is funded primarily by multinational corporations.” Many local Chambers have absolutely nothing to do with this front for big business.
So is the Fortune 500 broadly supportive of free trade? LOL, not anymore at least. If you can’t call out 10% across the board tariffs, you aren’t a free trader. Then there’s that January 6th thing.
The US Chamber of Commerce is supported by big business, so broadly speaking it represents the general interests of the Fortune 500 (though not all Fortune 500 companies are members). (Ties to local Chambers of Commerce are mostly superficial exercises in public relations.)
Democracy is very good for capitalism. Self interest beyond the next quarterly earnings report should compel our business leaders to openly defy Trump. No such luck. Export oriented companies should oppose these tariffs, because taxes on imports amount to taxes on exports, via enhanced import prices, most notably labor. No such luck. Fortune 500 companies don’t represent their shareholders particularly well, never mind the general public.
If Bob shoots any Djiboutian person that he sees, while Amy merely builds a wall that keeps Djiboutian persons from being able to enter the country, then both Bob and Amy are anti-Djibouti.
One is worse, yes, but that doesn’t mean that either of them is pro-Djibouti.
I was interested to see that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has faced some internal dissension over recent endorsements of some Democratic candidates; it just endorsed an incumbent Democrat in California’s 50th Congressional District.
It has also endorsed Ted Cruz over Colin Allred, so there’s that.
If Bob shoots any Djiboutian person that he sees, while Amy merely builds a wall that keeps Djiboutian persons from being able to enter the country goes about her business but does not donate to pro-Djiboutian causes, then Bob is anti-Djibouti. Those who say they are both anti-Djibouti are not pro-Djibouti.
One is worse, yes, but that doesn’t mean that either of them is pro-Djibouti. Except insofar as Amy has always… ah forget it. The US has long-standing policies that have been mostly free trade, with occasional reversals (reference George Bush’s steel tariffs). Free trade deals won’t currently pass Congress. In this political environment supporting the status quo amounts to significant pressure for free trade. Sometimes treading water is the best you can do.
Not that free trade is necessarily ideal! It’s just better than poorly designed and inflationary blanket tariffs.
This reminds me of the both-siderism that we are getting form the Pro-Palestinian lobby. Yes, Biden and probably Harris aren’t pushing back on Israel the way that these people would like, but they are a hell of a lot better for them than Trump would be.
Sure, if you only consider the inbound component and even then through “Uncle Sam” tinted glasses.
Let’s not forget the US Farm Bill and the consequent mechanism to export/dispose the surplus created. The free trade Cairns Group was formed as a counter to the spiralling trade subsidies of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy and the United States’ Export Enhancement Program.
That Commie rag The Economist has just published an issue whose cover story is labeled
The Trumpification of American policy
No matter who wins in November, Donald Trump has redefined both parties’ agendas.
They go on to argue at length that on nearly every area of policy, trump / MAGA / Freedumb Caucus / Heritage Foundation has set the terms of debate and positioned the USA where the left-leaning choice is right and the right-leaning choice is Reactionary Wacko or nihilist.
To be clear they are not now, and never have been, fans of trump et al. But they are perceptive enough to see what’s happening and report accurately on it.
The Economist is a superior source of news, though they watered down their American content as their US readership increased.
Superior is a relative word. Here it’s relative to the NYT, WSJ, WAPO, CNN, anything on TV. Less bothsidism than the NYT, though it’s still there. In Europe it is considered a conservative newspaper (also a liberal one, no conflict there according to European definitions). I’m often dubious about their POV, but their articles generally are informative enough so that reasonable me can disagree with the reasonable reporter’s perspective.
Substack can be better, but substack doesn’t do comprehensive reporting. Heck, is there any organ that reports on a wider range of countries? Maybe Foreign Policy.
I see them as capital-C Conservative and capital-L Liberal in the European sense; they’re capitalist but anti-crime and anti-cronyist. I like to call myself a “Progressive Thinking Capitalist” where it takes all three of those poles to hold up my stool. IMO The Economist plays nicely into that worldview.
IMO both Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs address the worldwide situation, but both are stronger on intergovernmental policy and academic / think tank analysis than on current events as news.
The Conference Board are straight shooters on Trump / Biden trade policy. Their September 20, 2024 report has these bullet points:
Former President Trump has proposed “universal” tariffs of 10-20 percent and tariffs on Chinese goods of 60 percent or more. The plan as described has no exceptions, but it would clearly contravene current US free trade agreements, and some exceptions would likely be made in practice.
The President’s powers on imposing tariffs without Congressional approval are broad, giving credence to the view that he would try to impose some form of universal tariff, which could be highly inflationary and impact US supply chains.
Vice President Harris would broadly continue the Administration’s trade policies, including its current tariffs on certain Chinese goods. There is a possibility she might be more open to discussions on market access, particularly on clean energy goods, depending on the results of the Congressional election.
Whichever candidate wins, renegotiation of the US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement in 2026 will be a major issue for the next Administration.
They also have a 4 page report on the subject. I trust the Chamber is a subscriber. This is moral failure by the US Chamber of Commerce; I presume it is not an intellectual failure.
Conference Board on International Trade
As far as I can tell though, the Conference Board has not been critical in the past 3 months of Trump’s rejection of the democratic experiment. They do have a webpage on misinformation and the like, so the topic is part of their wheelhouse.
The failure of the Conference Board to address what could be loosely characterized as a fascist threat (a platform that combines rejection of electoral politics and mass deportation is properly identified as such - think Mussolini, not Hitler) best reflects corporate America’s positioning. Our business leaders by and large have shown little intelligence or political courage in sustaining the environment of law that they rely on. They don’t care. Remember that.
things have settled into a odd limbo, like we’re all waiting out the clock until Election Day, resigned that a sufficient number of our fellow citizens may in fact decide to ditch the American experiment as we know it, imperfect though it’s been, in favor of some kind of gaudy neofascist kleptocracy.
From When Democracy Itself Is On the Ballot, We’ve Already Lost
TPM has an interesting journalistic framework. They are up front about their POV, but they strive for honestly and fairness. Part of honesty involves stating where they haven’t quite figured things out. I’m happy to support conservative or liberal rags provided they have the requisite levels of honesty and opposition to dictatorship. It’s easier to find that on the center left than on the right of center.
At best they fall into the same trap as the regular low-info voter, of assuming that such “environment of law” or at least the parts that protect them, is some sort of natural default base state severable from the parts of the law that limit them or that protect others.
At worst it’s a repeat of how the original rise of fascism in the 1920s and 30s was heavily abetted by capitalists and land oligarchs in the respective countries, as long as they got someone to keep “the Bolsheviks” away.
I see no evidence that once a company reaches a certain size (Fortune 500 certainly qualifies, I’m open to “listed on a stock exchange”) that it cares about anything beyond the next quarterly report.
