7 ms·

Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business. I know the whole tech crowd wants him to crash and burn but the stock market rising is no surprise to me

Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business. I know the whole tech crowd wants him to crash and burn but the stock market rising is no surprise to me. Whether it's worth the damage done to the poor and the environment is yet to be seen.

celticninja 10y ago
I think many people dont want him to crash and burn. I think he was a terrible choice for president same as I think brexit was a terrible idea, but that's what we have got so I hope I am wrong on both counts. Why? Because I have to live in a world with both, so I don't wish for me to be right and everything to be shit, I hope I was wrong and everything is sunshine and fucking roses.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
xname2 10y ago
"the whole tech crowd wants him to crash" - is this an alternative fact? lol. Get downvotes for pointing out the "alternative fact".
- sctb 10y ago
  Please don't complain about downvotes, the guidelines ask us not to: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Additionally, this account has been posting mostly political or ideological comments. That's not what this site is for, and eventually we ban accounts that abuse it in this way.
mikeryan 10y ago
Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business. I think this might generally be correct however he seems to be more vehemently "Pro American Worker" and so far when that collides with his "Pro Business" stance the worker is currently winning. Attempting to get businesses to repatriate jobs is not necessarily a "pro-business" stance.
- harryjo 10y ago
  He's promoting _jobs_, but also promoting pollution and cuts to healthcare, wages, and job safety.
- crisnoble 10y ago
  What decisions has he made that are pro worker? I have heard that he has pushed to restart pipeline construction (pro business), freeze fedral hiring (anti worker), and kill ACA (anti worker, pro business).
  - crusso 10y ago
    The pipeline will create jobs and decrease fuel costs (pro business and worker). Freezing federal hiring will decrease the tax and regulatory load shouldered by everyone (pro business and worker). The ACA was shown to have been sold to the workers based upon lies regarding costs and access to their doctors. It's imploding under its own weight. Further, if the ACA benefits anyone, it benefits people who don't work but receive subsidies. So getting rid of it is a decided plus for workers.
    - crisnoble 10y ago
      Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs, so is in no way pro worker. Employees of the government are workers too. The ACA benefits my wife who was able to quit her job to start a business without worrying about being denied healthcare for her pre-existing condition. The ACA benefits all workers in businesses who now are required to offer healthcare plans which meet a minimum standard. Workers will not benefit once businesses can go back to deciding that offering a group health insurance plan is an optional benefit.
      - jakeogh 10y ago
        "Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs" Jobs in government, not in private industry. Would you rather we all go on the gov payroll?
norea-armozel 10y ago
It's more that he's pro-business-he-likes. If you happen to be a company focused on renewable energy or nuclear fusion he's likely to side with old energy companies and try to throw as many regulatory hurdles in front of your ventures to ensure his friends win. All in the name of free market capitalism of course (/s).
- potatosoup 10y ago
  Not strictly true, or he wouldn't be working with Elon Mask, for example. [1] However what's certain is that he wants to achieve US independence from Middle Eastern oil so as to stop enriching Saudi princes. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-elon-musk-rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-climate-change-global-warming-a7544681.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    Trust me, when your Sec of State pick is an Exxon-Mobil executive, there's no energy independence in the cards. Those vultures want to ensure they get a monopoly on oil regardless of the country in question. That's just how they roll.
cryptoz 10y ago
> Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business. No he is definitely not. Trump is anti-business and he makes that very clear. His campaign promises and actions since election are super clear that he is pro-his-wealth and not pro-business. A pro-business politician would raise taxes on the wealthy, provide tax cuts for the middle class, increase the corporate tax rate, improve immigration so that more people could come in to the country, address massive business risks like climate change with a serious face, improve healthcare for everyone in nation, etc. A pro-business politician would want a healthy and wealthy middle class, a stable climate, and good tax structure to incentivize smart people to come here and build useful things. More businesses are more likely to succeed in a society that is healthy, resourceful with its environment, and with enough wealth shared that income inequality does not destabilize the structure. Trump is the opposite of being pro-business. Trump is not fiscally conservative or pro-business at all - the very idea that he is would be considered an "alternative fact" - a lie.
- ovidnis 10y ago
  Could you explain why any of what you say a 'pro-business' politician should do is pro-business? I think a lot of people would disagree with you on those points.
  - cryptoz 10y ago
    Okay, sure. The first place is to immediately dispel the idea that Republicans have ever been about being "pro-business" - and the second place will be that Trump specifically is not. It's simple Tragedy of the Commons at first. Republicans / Republican Presidents are generally pro-greed and pro-riches, not pro-business, and those are different things. What you want in a good business environment is not achieved with Republican policies. This can be seen with the past few presidents - good economic times and growth with Democrat policies, and poor economic times and decline with Republicans. Specifics. > A pro-business politician would raise taxes on the wealthy, provide tax cuts for the middle class, increase the corporate tax rate Henry Ford is the good example here of showing why this is pro-business. Give your country a stable, wealthy middle class (pay your auto-workers more, a lot more), and then they will be able to buy your products and your company will thrive. Roads will be built for your cars to drive on, with those taxes! Wealthy people are important in a capitalistic society, but income inequality and extreme wealth present dangers, not useful things. Income inequality will catch up with the business as the middle class fades and doesn't buy their products. Want a pro-business environment? Increase corporate taxes to fund schools and education and infrastructure so that more people will grow up healthy and wealthy and wanting to buy things. > Improve immigration so that more people could come in to the country Is this really a debate, especially here? Most of the smart people in the world who can create wealth and businesses do NOT live in the USA. If they wanted to live here, or did live here, that would be great. > Address massive business risks like climate change with a serious face The climate is changing, and it's going to kill a lot of people that could have been buying your products. It's going to displace hundreds of millions of families and settlements. Food production and distribution is going to be wildly affected. Basic things that should be stable in a business environment will not be stable. Climate change is the biggest RISK for corporate profits in the world (though right now you could also see it as an opportunity - if you recognize that it needs to be addressed). > improve healthcare for everyone in nation Again is this really a debate? Isn't it obvious that healthy people will be better for business? Do you want your customer base to be dying? Or your employees worried about disease? That's not useful for business.
potatosoup 10y ago
> Whether it's worth the damage done to the poor Like what? If anything, more jobs instead of more and more social programs would do a lot to actually get people to a decent livelihood...
- vkou 10y ago
  America today manufactures far more goods then the America of 1970 did. Yet, American manufacturing is dead as a source of jobs. Even if the factories come back, the jobs won't.
sgustard 10y ago
He's already threatened businesses with penalties if they build plants outside the US. He's going after free trade agreements that help a lot of companies build products more cheaply and access overseas markets. Sure, protectionism may help some businesses avoid competition for a while, but it can't help them in the long run as they become obsolete. This kind of interference in the free market makes it hard to call him pro-business.
- nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
  What he is doing is largely in reponse to increasing protectionism by other countries. Examples: US "web" companies must now store EU data in Europe. Any foreign company that wants to compete in Europe needs a European office and datacentres now. Good luck getting European customers for a US startup now. China is notoriously protectionist. They manipulate their currency exchange rate, engage in market dumping to hurt competitors in other countries, require foreign firms to have a Chinese "partner" which is more like a parasite that steals money and IP. There's many more examples. To a certain degree the US government has a job of protecting US businesses just like it protects it's citizens. For important resources like steel and rare earth elements, US businesses have been driven out not because it's so expensive but because foreign countries heavily subsidize the industry and create artificially low prices. "Bringing the jobs back" will work but only if the US govt retaliates with import tariffs or subsidies of its own
rconti 10y ago
Is there anything more statist than wanting to pick and choose which businesses do well and which ones crash and burn? Taking out one's personal vendettas on businesses on a whim? I take that back, the 2nd part is beyond even statism.
PopsiclePete 10y ago
As a business owner, of a large multi-national company heavily invested in various non-physical IP-heavy "product", say, Disney, wouldn't Trump's move to pull the US out of the TPP not make me shit my pants with fear for the future? One of the key provisions of the TPP was to force Asian countries to adhere to strict US copyright laws. And that makes sense, since IP companies' products are what the US really exports on makes money on - nobody is buying US fridges and ovens in large quantities. And if you can't get China to respect IP laws, then you have no future there. Maybe I'm completely confused about the TPP, but I'm frankly pretty surprised the market's reaction so far has been one giant "meh".
- nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
  This sounds great but the TPP didn't include China, by far the biggest IP violator on the planet. The TPP was more of a giant conglomeration of things that various large companies in different countries wanted. The text of the agreement was drawn up as secretively as possible because everybody knew the only point was to help the fortune 500 and fuck over everyone else. I'm glad it's dead.

celticninja 10y ago

I think many people dont want him to crash and burn. I think he was a terrible choice for president same as I think brexit was a terrible idea, but that's what we have got so I hope I am wrong on both counts. Why? Because I have to live in a world with both, so I don't wish for me to be right and everything to be shit, I hope I was wrong and everything is sunshine and fucking roses.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

xname2 10y ago

"the whole tech crowd wants him to crash" - is this an alternative fact? lol. Get downvotes for pointing out the "alternative fact".

sctb 10y ago
Please don't complain about downvotes, the guidelines ask us not to: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Additionally, this account has been posting mostly political or ideological comments. That's not what this site is for, and eventually we ban accounts that abuse it in this way.

mikeryan 10y ago

Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business. I think this might generally be correct however he seems to be more vehemently "Pro American Worker" and so far when that collides with his "Pro Business" stance the worker is currently winning. Attempting to get businesses to repatriate jobs is not necessarily a "pro-business" stance.

harryjo 10y ago
He's promoting _jobs_, but also promoting pollution and cuts to healthcare, wages, and job safety.
crisnoble 10y ago
What decisions has he made that are pro worker? I have heard that he has pushed to restart pipeline construction (pro business), freeze fedral hiring (anti worker), and kill ACA (anti worker, pro business).
- crusso 10y ago
  The pipeline will create jobs and decrease fuel costs (pro business and worker). Freezing federal hiring will decrease the tax and regulatory load shouldered by everyone (pro business and worker). The ACA was shown to have been sold to the workers based upon lies regarding costs and access to their doctors. It's imploding under its own weight. Further, if the ACA benefits anyone, it benefits people who don't work but receive subsidies. So getting rid of it is a decided plus for workers.
  - crisnoble 10y ago
    Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs, so is in no way pro worker. Employees of the government are workers too. The ACA benefits my wife who was able to quit her job to start a business without worrying about being denied healthcare for her pre-existing condition. The ACA benefits all workers in businesses who now are required to offer healthcare plans which meet a minimum standard. Workers will not benefit once businesses can go back to deciding that offering a group health insurance plan is an optional benefit.
    - jakeogh 10y ago
      "Freezing federal hiring literally will cost jobs" Jobs in government, not in private industry. Would you rather we all go on the gov payroll?

norea-armozel 10y ago

It's more that he's pro-business-he-likes. If you happen to be a company focused on renewable energy or nuclear fusion he's likely to side with old energy companies and try to throw as many regulatory hurdles in front of your ventures to ensure his friends win. All in the name of free market capitalism of course (/s).

potatosoup 10y ago
Not strictly true, or he wouldn't be working with Elon Mask, for example. [1] However what's certain is that he wants to achieve US independence from Middle Eastern oil so as to stop enriching Saudi princes. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/donald-trump-elon-musk-rex-tillerson-secretary-of-state-climate-change-global-warming-a7544681.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  Trust me, when your Sec of State pick is an Exxon-Mobil executive, there's no energy independence in the cards. Those vultures want to ensure they get a monopoly on oil regardless of the country in question. That's just how they roll.

cryptoz 10y ago

> Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business. No he is definitely not. Trump is anti-business and he makes that very clear. His campaign promises and actions since election are super clear that he is pro-his-wealth and not pro-business. A pro-business politician would raise taxes on the wealthy, provide tax cuts for the middle class, increase the corporate tax rate, improve immigration so that more people could come in to the country, address massive business risks like climate change with a serious face, improve healthcare for everyone in nation, etc. A pro-business politician would want a healthy and wealthy middle class, a stable climate, and good tax structure to incentivize smart people to come here and build useful things. More businesses are more likely to succeed in a society that is healthy, resourceful with its environment, and with enough wealth shared that income inequality does not destabilize the structure. Trump is the opposite of being pro-business. Trump is not fiscally conservative or pro-business at all - the very idea that he is would be considered an "alternative fact" - a lie.

ovidnis 10y ago
Could you explain why any of what you say a 'pro-business' politician should do is pro-business? I think a lot of people would disagree with you on those points.
- cryptoz 10y ago
  Okay, sure. The first place is to immediately dispel the idea that Republicans have ever been about being "pro-business" - and the second place will be that Trump specifically is not. It's simple Tragedy of the Commons at first. Republicans / Republican Presidents are generally pro-greed and pro-riches, not pro-business, and those are different things. What you want in a good business environment is not achieved with Republican policies. This can be seen with the past few presidents - good economic times and growth with Democrat policies, and poor economic times and decline with Republicans. Specifics. > A pro-business politician would raise taxes on the wealthy, provide tax cuts for the middle class, increase the corporate tax rate Henry Ford is the good example here of showing why this is pro-business. Give your country a stable, wealthy middle class (pay your auto-workers more, a lot more), and then they will be able to buy your products and your company will thrive. Roads will be built for your cars to drive on, with those taxes! Wealthy people are important in a capitalistic society, but income inequality and extreme wealth present dangers, not useful things. Income inequality will catch up with the business as the middle class fades and doesn't buy their products. Want a pro-business environment? Increase corporate taxes to fund schools and education and infrastructure so that more people will grow up healthy and wealthy and wanting to buy things. > Improve immigration so that more people could come in to the country Is this really a debate, especially here? Most of the smart people in the world who can create wealth and businesses do NOT live in the USA. If they wanted to live here, or did live here, that would be great. > Address massive business risks like climate change with a serious face The climate is changing, and it's going to kill a lot of people that could have been buying your products. It's going to displace hundreds of millions of families and settlements. Food production and distribution is going to be wildly affected. Basic things that should be stable in a business environment will not be stable. Climate change is the biggest RISK for corporate profits in the world (though right now you could also see it as an opportunity - if you recognize that it needs to be addressed). > improve healthcare for everyone in nation Again is this really a debate? Isn't it obvious that healthy people will be better for business? Do you want your customer base to be dying? Or your employees worried about disease? That's not useful for business.

potatosoup 10y ago

> Whether it's worth the damage done to the poor Like what? If anything, more jobs instead of more and more social programs would do a lot to actually get people to a decent livelihood...

vkou 10y ago
America today manufactures far more goods then the America of 1970 did. Yet, American manufacturing is dead as a source of jobs. Even if the factories come back, the jobs won't.

sgustard 10y ago

He's already threatened businesses with penalties if they build plants outside the US. He's going after free trade agreements that help a lot of companies build products more cheaply and access overseas markets. Sure, protectionism may help some businesses avoid competition for a while, but it can't help them in the long run as they become obsolete. This kind of interference in the free market makes it hard to call him pro-business.

nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
What he is doing is largely in reponse to increasing protectionism by other countries. Examples: US "web" companies must now store EU data in Europe. Any foreign company that wants to compete in Europe needs a European office and datacentres now. Good luck getting European customers for a US startup now. China is notoriously protectionist. They manipulate their currency exchange rate, engage in market dumping to hurt competitors in other countries, require foreign firms to have a Chinese "partner" which is more like a parasite that steals money and IP. There's many more examples. To a certain degree the US government has a job of protecting US businesses just like it protects it's citizens. For important resources like steel and rare earth elements, US businesses have been driven out not because it's so expensive but because foreign countries heavily subsidize the industry and create artificially low prices. "Bringing the jobs back" will work but only if the US govt retaliates with import tariffs or subsidies of its own

rconti 10y ago

Is there anything more statist than wanting to pick and choose which businesses do well and which ones crash and burn? Taking out one's personal vendettas on businesses on a whim? I take that back, the 2nd part is beyond even statism.

PopsiclePete 10y ago

As a business owner, of a large multi-national company heavily invested in various non-physical IP-heavy "product", say, Disney, wouldn't Trump's move to pull the US out of the TPP not make me shit my pants with fear for the future? One of the key provisions of the TPP was to force Asian countries to adhere to strict US copyright laws. And that makes sense, since IP companies' products are what the US really exports on makes money on - nobody is buying US fridges and ovens in large quantities. And if you can't get China to respect IP laws, then you have no future there. Maybe I'm completely confused about the TPP, but I'm frankly pretty surprised the market's reaction so far has been one giant "meh".

nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
This sounds great but the TPP didn't include China, by far the biggest IP violator on the planet. The TPP was more of a giant conglomeration of things that various large companies in different countries wanted. The text of the agreement was drawn up as secretively as possible because everybody knew the only point was to help the fortune 500 and fuck over everyone else. I'm glad it's dead.