Conversation

I read somewhere that in the early Reagan/Thatcher years, business leaders (not just labor) were so used to a regulated economy, they resisted deregulation. Took a new generation of risk-taking entrepreneurial leaders for the business world to become champions of deregulation.
5
27
Can’t recall source, but this was not mere cronyism or isolated protectionism. Those things continued uninterrupted under neoliberalism, just in different forms. This was genuine fear of an open economy/desire for paternalistic state involvement.
2
4
Seems like the process is reversing itself. Now businesses are starting to actively seek regulatory oversight. And beyond what can be explained by wanting to put up moats against competition. There is genuinely a growing renewed appetite for more market supervision.
3
9
My theory is that in general, the business class is much more risk-averse than the political class. It only *seems* to have more risk appetite during E(upside) >> E(downside) periods. The moment the pendulum swings back towards downsides, they want mommy and daddy to step back in
4
16
Right now, I suspect the outgoing Trump regime is being kinda schizophrenic. Strengthening specific-market-protecting moats (which individual crony businesses like) but providing less generic economic supervision esp re Covid etc than I think businesses want.
1
5
Point being, the uniquely bad condition of the US-UK axis is probably due to the uniquely strong embrace of the Reagan-Thatcherism. Not Anglo culture. The downside risk potato is tossed back and forth between state and business sector. Privatize gains/socialize losses system.
Replying to
Challenge today: you don’t want to continue neoliberal regulation models, but we don’t want to go back to LBJ era great society regulatory model either. You don’t want regulation that’s mainly around moats and bailouts, but you do want it around public-interest issues.
2
10
Oddly I think we’re in a weird condition where most businesses would largely agree with this, but it’s politicians that want to continue the old regime. I don’t think there’s even much appetite for nationalist protectionism outside Luddite sectors. Only narrow China protection.
5
Replying to
There seems to be precedent in the failed merchant empires of both the Dutch and English East India Companies. Upside all kept by the merchants, but when things went belly up around 1800 their frankenfirms were so large that tax payers had to step in.