It is entirely sensible when it is considered in the context of trade policies. The problem with the headless analysis is that it does not consider the reality that "hostile" policies towards one business result in advantages to others for whom negotiating those policies is more feasible.
Hostility to small business with employment law is a perfect example-it is far easier to manage these rules with a large hr unit than with a mom and pop store.
Edit: an afterthought-I do not mean to say that big business never loses-occasionally it does. It is still the single largest player in trade policy, however. Its defeats are the result of transitory coalitions that are issue, rather than entity or party, specific.
Disadvantages to competitors-one of the basic motivations for corporate monies in lobbying.
Influence corresponds directly to financial power in the us-that's why finance got a trillion in welfare and independent mini marts get peanuts in comparison.
>.<
Sure, ignore the tax policy and only talk about trade. That will help make your argument look more plausible.
Of course, even trade is only an example of big business against big business.
Steel got some very nice tariffs within the past 5 years.
Do you think Catapillar wanted to pay more for steel?
Sooo, where was "big business" in that example? Oh, on both sides of the winners and losers.
There is no "big business" lobby. "Big business" is not some monolithic giant with Mr. Burns behind a conference table making decisions with his cabal.
There are many different businesses all pursuing their own self-interest.
Adam Smith knew business could not be trusted. He knew that government could be trusted less. As a result, the best thing to do is get
government out of business and then we'll have less collusion, corruption, and lobbying.
Hey, I can dream.
