Do you mean actual firms?Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 8:46 pm I spent the afternoon taking care of business in a nearby small town which has been economically depressed for the entire time I've been here (almost 9 years now). All kinds of new businesses are springing up, as though somebody flipped a switch. And the "help wanted" signs, which have been nonexistent for as long as I can remember, seem to be everywhere. I have mixed feelings about all this change, but there's no doubt the policies of the present administration have been a godsend for a lot of lower to lower-middle class people in rural America. Which got me to thinking about this thread and about the charge that the present administration's tax and administrative reforms make Trump just another whore of the Elite, and I thought, "What difference does it make whether the 1% benefit incidentally from these changes? I think some people are so mired in jealousy and resentment that they'd sooner see the lower and middle classes go to ruin than allow the wealthy to flourish.
This is not to say that the widening gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" isn't a problem. But this administration has, perhaps for the first time in recent history, actually signaled an intent to do something about the monopolies and paramonopolies that, more than anything else, have fueled the wealth divide. I have to applaud this administration on both counts because the answer, it seems to me, is less government and more old-fashioned free enterprise, which is something we haven't seen in quite a while.
I haven't heard Trump say anything about breaking up banks, global corporations, telecomms, etc. Did you mean something else? Renegotiating free trade, reducing taxes, and reducing regulations is hardly a signal to "do something" about monopolies... I'm assuming you're talking about something else...
One could make the argument that those policies are good for us, but that's a very different thing than breaking up monopolies.