What is the proper relationship between corporations, society and government? This question is increasingly urgent as businesses worldwide plead for government support to get them through the economic disaster of coronavirus. This week’s long read pick, by Matt Stoller at American Affairs, offers some indications as to how (at least in the United States) this debate may develop as we emerge from lockdown.
Business leaders are confronting ‘a crisis in corporate America’. Productivity is foundering, energy companies seem unable to stop setting bushfires in California and social media is inflaming political polarisation. Stoller traces the evolution of this situation through the regulatory changes that brought it about.
In the 1980s, Stoller writes, ‘the American economy was still in many ways a New Deal society’: unionised, dotted with small businesses, highly structured regulations governing utilities, and public infrastructure. But international corporations were increasingly struggling between these obligations and the intensifying aggression of global competition.
The Reagan-era Business Roundtable argued that business was capable of meeting its social obligations without this raft of regulations. In response, government cut social spending, deregulated industries and relaxed antitrust rules. Industries consolidated, strikes reduced, inflation stabilised and stagnant areas of the economy roared to life.
But, as Stoller notes, the new normal ‘also began weakening the bonds between CEOs and the corporations they ran’, and over time saw ‘the end of stakeholder capitalism and in some ways the erosion of the CEOs’ own power thanks to the replacement of CEOs by financiers at the top of the food chain.
Leveraged buyouts, asset-stripping and the new age of private equity drove economic concentration even as their advocates paid lip service to competition. Stoller shows how the Clinton administration, ostensibly left-wing, embraced the financiers even more enthusiastically than Bush had before him. The days of deregulation, offshoring and the deliberate ceding of manufacturing to China arrived, even as the fall of the Berlin Wall encouraged business leaders and those benefiting from globalisation to hail ‘The End Of History’. Meanwhile, the benefits seemed sufficiently widespread that “financial power, markets, and social justice seemed to go hand in hand.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThanks for that, and for the link to the Matt Stoller article. I only discovered Stoller a week or so ago, via the Jimmy Dore podcast. He’s very good.
Which would you rather, a large number of rebellious Uighurs being taught that it is not right to kill people just because they are different, or the same people ( who want to turn Xinjiang into Eastern Turkmenistan ) being forcibly moved to the narrow and almost inhospitable Wakhjir corridor that links China to Afghanistan ? Have you not noticed that Islam would possibly NOT win any prizes for ‘ peaceful co-existence ‘?
Is Mary Harrington concerned about the future of Communist China inc, or about globalist plans for ‘one world’? I heard all that talk about ‘the Chinese future’ has just died, given their creation and cover-up of the crime of the century. The corollary is that we’re going back to strong nations, strong leaders, and strong borders in a world threatened by communist and Islamist tyranny and militarism. Maybe Unherd writers concerned about social justice could write about the 1m+ Chinese Muslims now in ‘re-education’ camps, wondering if their organs will be harvested, as a topic more relevant to our new future
Unherd has become another leftist mouthpiece. You’ll help nothing like that