Government-Sponsored Corporatism Leading to Rise of Populism
By Daily Bell Staff - April 25, 2016

2016 Campaign’s Populist Tone Rankles America’s CEOs …  Chief executives at big American companies are increasingly frustrated by the populist tone of the presidential campaign, and concerns are mounting in boardrooms and corner offices that anti-business rhetoric may solidify even after the November election. – Wall Street Journal

This Wall Street Journal article makes the point that Trump has positioned himself at the head of an increasingly anti-business GOP.


The GOP “has been captured by a large number of people who basically do not like big,” said Judd Gregg, a Republican former U.S. senator and governor of New Hampshire, who sits on the board of Honeywell International Inc.

By default, there’s nothing wrong with “big.” Theoretically, big business can mean economies of scale and economic efficiency. The oversized corporations of the US, however, are not natural products of the market. Instead, they are the artificial results of government policy.

As we’ve often pointed out, there are three areas where judicial force has been applied, swelling corporations to titanic sizes.

The first is intellectual property rights.

If corporations had to protect their own trade secrets rather than relying on government to do it for them, it is very probable that many corporations would be a good deal smaller.

The second is corporate personhood.

Corporate personhood makes it a good deal easier for individuals to avoid culpability for corporate acts.

Those lodged within a corporation can often avoid penalties that would otherwise expose them to significant personal jeopardy. Because they stay in charge, continuity isn’t disrupted and exceptionally aggressive corporate strategies can be maintained.

The third area is monopoly central banking.

Monopoly fiat money benefits the world’s largest corporations inordinately. The money coming out of central banks, especially Western central banks, often finds its way to the largest multinationals first, providing significant liquidity to these massive entities.

There are other ways that “big business” is artificially supported and propped up in the West, but these seem to be the most significant.

To claim that the current US “populist” environment is anti-big business is to radically misconstrue the reality of American capitalism.

American capitalism has very little about it that is laissez-faire.

US judicial decisions have created an environment in which gigantic corporations can flourish.

Thomas Jefferson and other founders were so worried about corporate bigness that corporate creation was lodged at the state rather than the federal level.

It was only after the Civil War that judicial decisions began to lay the groundwork for the modern corporate state.

The modern corporate state is almost antithetical to the agrarian republicanism that Jefferson and others had envisioned – a free-market republicanism that was responsible for initial US growth.

This Wall Street Journal radically misrepresents the reality of business in the US and throughout the West.

Rhetoric from Republican candidates has grown more populist and less friendly to big business than at any time in decades, while the Democratic race is being influenced by the rise of liberal Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Some of these instincts gave rise to the tea-party movement in 2009 and sent dozens of more conservative lawmakers to Washington the following year, fueling gridlock on Capitol Hill.

In the past, The Daily Bell has very clearly identified Tea Party sentiments with an underlying free-market instinct present in the US since its founding.

In fact, this sentiment was present in the US long before the Constitution.

Instinctively, people know that “big business” does not present a competitive, free-market profile.

The US and the West generally have developed a system more aptly characterized as “corporatism.”

Entrepreneurialism continues to diminish in the US. Regulations, taxes and the underlying judicial support for larger corporations are making it increasingly difficult for people to make even a modest living.

A recent article over at Infowars, entitled, “Authorities Fear Civil Unrest, Buy Up Gear To Arrest, Disperse, Control Riots,” reported on the growing popular frustration with the direction of US society.

Riot control systems are expected to “generate revenues of over USD 3.5 billion by the end of 2020,” with North America being one of the primary growth areas for upgraded weapons due to “militarization of the police department and other law enforcement agencies.”

The article also mentioned recent comments bytop insurer Lloyds in a report warning of a “pandemic of global civil unrest that could go viral, threatening international stability.”

Market-based economies generate entrepreneurial republicanism – a system that encourages both freedom and prosperity.

The US’s “Fortune 500” approach to “big business,” encourages the mingling of government power with titanic private interests. Over time, this trend creates corporatism, which can also be described as fascism.

The inter-locking, anti-freedom environment of modern Western society is generating increasing push-back for a number of reasons. It’s not a trend that will likely diminish.

Conclusion:  As always, we encourage independence – a “prepper” mentality – focused on personal preparedness. What happens to the larger society is beyond your control, but you can have an impact on your own personal environment. And you should.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with:
  • alaska3636

    Five-Thirty-Eight weighs in on the BIG:
    “Just don’t call it basic income. “For political strategy reasons, they’re staying away from the term ‘basic income,’ ” said Jurgen De Wispelaere, a research fellow at the University of Tampere in Finland, who is in contact with those running the Dutch experiments. Instead, the pilots are billed as “trust experiments” and the basic income is often called a “citizen’s wage.””

  • Earn nest

    Central banks now openly purchase corporate bonds.

    • Bruce C.

      Investment grade for now but “junk” bonds will be next.

    • FreeOregon

      And in Japan, shares of stock.

      What a way to shift control of the means of production from the productive sector to Government.

      We used to call this Communism.

      Perhaps we could call it Corporate Sponsored Governmentism.

      • Bruce C.

        It will be interesting to see what the arrogant CEOs say when they realize that the majority stock owner of their company has become the Fed.
        The Fed now owns 30% – which is a clear majority – of all US Treasury bonds. Stranger things have happened, and they’re not done yet.

        • Sam Fox

          Yup. And who owns the Fed? Not the USA…

  • Bruce C.

    Well, one hint of good news – according to “The Journal” – is that “riot control systems” are expected to sell until at least 2020, which means it may prove so profitable that riots won’t be provoked even then.

  • licensed2carry

    Great piece!

  • Vicky Davis

    This is classic propaganda and misdirection. It is precisely the market-based governance system implemented during the Clinton administration with the intellectual assistance of Michael Porter, Harvard University; Senator Heinz from Pennsylvania, Senator Wirth from Colorado just to name a few that is the core problem in the economy. It is my belief that it is repackaged German national socialism – updated for modern time.

    • Maybe we misunderstand. Clinton implemented a “market-based” system of governance? Really?

      • Pilgrim

        Yes, Clinton implemented a system whereby government influence was marketed to the highest bidder. That’s “market-based” in Clinton-speak.

  • Jim Johnson

    I like the tone implying evolution to where we are, with a judiciary intent, this last 100 years, in experimenting with the untried tom-foolery for the sake of having tried, if only to see what happens. The pace of change can not be overstated. Nobody has ever been where we find ourselves. My Tea-Party membership began when I felt I have been experimented on and taxed now literally to death, resulting in a resolve that I’ve had enough. The thieving is now rampant and brazen, daring us to “do something”. So, we are. Time to simplify- give me back my Constitution, please and thank you. My neighbors and I are getting along just fine with this notion. This convoluted complex chaotic experiment you call a country is not holding water, much less your pensions. Our savings are now safely buried here and there, waiting for sanity to return.

  • Sam Fox

    Very interesting. Good thoughts & points were made in the article.

    We badly need a return to free market capitalism, not the crony crapo that has replaced free markets. In a free market the consumer, to a great degree, controls which businesses thrive & which ones die. The crony jive we see all around us now means that every time a govt cony has a problem, govt will bail them out instead of letting them go out of business.

    Also I think the article clarifies a bit of ambiguous language near the end of the following quote, written by Heidi Cruz during her 5 years at the Council On Foreign Relations. She wrote it after helping draft the blueprint for another CFR shot at a North American Union.

    “I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants.”
    When she talks bout ‘market participants’ I think she means that govt cronies, like her employer Goldman Sachs, should have a great deal of influence. Like they don’t already enjoy that power & influence. When she mentioned the ‘private sector’ I think she is talking govt cronies. I don’t know of many small businesses that have much influence under the cronyism we have now.

  • Praetor

    I don’t think it is ‘big’ that bothers the people, the U.S. itself is big. Its as you say DB, its the consolidation and the elimination of competition that’s bothering the people. We The People are being left out of the equation. The only purpose We The People have left, is being consumers.
    If a person has an idea of something new and profitable the system has been set up to make it literally impossible to start a business on a shoe string. You cannot just go out and start a business until you meet the government laws, rules, regulation and taxation regime. The permitting process itself is very costly and time consuming, and you haven’t even start to make money yet. You wish to start a business in the good old U.S., you had better be rich already or be prepared to go into debt, and hope like heck, you’re business generates a profit.
    This all won’t last. The people are catching on to the corporate/government partnership against We The People and their efforts to reduce us to lowly bottom feeders. I’ve got news for them the survival instinct is a hard thing to overcome.
    The survival instinct is exactly what is being awakened, and that is in good part to, Internet Reformation of Information!!!

    • People don’t mind “bigness” but surely they mind business that is artificially created and illegitimately sustained. As you point out, more are seeing this now than before.

      • Steven Hotho

        Well, if the American people don’t mind “bigness”, they certainly should. With bigness comes complexity and with complexity comes control by bureaucracy. Bureaucracy brings the stifling of individuality and the command of society and economy. You have rightly promoted “localism” and I encourage you to rightly condemn bigness.

  • rahrog

    People in America seem to be catching on that their “nation” has been turned into a neofascist state.
    The Ruling Class is losing the information war.
    DB, have you any new info on the ability of The Ruling Class to take down the internet when it suits them?

    • Yes, there is apparently a kill switch. But for the purpose you are suggesting, it is already too late to use it.