Shut Up Money?

There was a time when the pursuits of big business and big government were polar opposites.

Big business was about embracing the capitalist ideal, growing profits and returning rewards to shareholders.

The advocates for big government claimed to be about socialising wealth generation to create a more equitable world.

In reality, socialist policies have always delivered more poverty rather than increased wealth.

Our politics broadly fell into those camps: pro-free enterprise or pro-big government.

That's changed in recent years. The political parties have primarily become a Uniparty choice.

Both Liberal and Labor have embraced the welfare state, huge immigration programs and embraced multiculturalism. Both have created huge debts they will never repay and traduced your freedom while interfering in your business and private lives more than they should.

It's much the same with big business and big government. They, too, are in cahoots and working against you.

That might seem strange, given that one needs votes and the other needs customers to maintain power, but it would seem they need each other a little more.

Here's how it works.

Big businesses can't afford to pick fights with the government because an interventionist, authoritarian regime can close down a business almost any time.

Sometimes, it's a brutal immediate closure, like we saw during COVID.

But did you notice only small businesses bore the brunt of that attack? Your local Bunnings, supermarket and liquor store were all open. It's no coincidence they were nearly all owned by the big corporates.

Other times, the government can strangle businesses in red, green and black tape.

Once again, it's a nightmare for small operators, but multinationals have the manpower to deal with new requirements.

Can you see how the deck is stacked in favour of the big boys?

In return, the giant corporations accede to government requests for social engineering by imposing pronoun requirements, ESG compliance and funding whatever claptrap campaign the government dreams up.

Corporate boards have no obligation outside of maximising shareholder returns, so it's reasonable to question why they tip millions into The Voice or redefining marriage.

Could it be that it's because they know they'll get a softer run from the government if they do?

Only a cynic would link Qantas' support for the doomed Voice with the government's decision to block a competitor from expanding, but there are plenty of cynics out there.

But what about the pro-business lobby groups?