For years they have told us that public companies are harmful to the economy. One of the basic principles of the Washington consensus emerged in the eighties of the last century was that «private industry is managed more efficiently than state companies», because the risk of bankruptcy forces the directors of private companies to Have attention to the results. Formulated at first for the Latin American countries and then applied during the post -communist transition in central and eastern Europe, the Washington consensus has since been the dominant paradigm of economic policy. But what happens when there are entrepreneurs in the Government? How do citizens affect the interests of these people who will influence the rules by which the population is governed? These are questions that are almost never asked, since the reflection instinct is to celebrate the arrival of experienced entrepreneurs to the command post. These successful professionals are supposed to manage efficiently, and usually deal with specific topics. But incorporating individual entrepreneurs into the government is one thing; and the philosophy of the new Trump administration is another since it seems determined to deliver the entire government to entrepreneurs. No one surprises, by the way, that he is located as secretary of the Treasury to another magnate of finance, Scott Besent, given the long List of predecessors with similar background. And the cancellation of competence policies and environmental and financial norms we already know about previous Republican governments, often with bad long -term results: from the financial crisis of 2008 to fires, heat waves and ice storms that are more and more intense and frequent. But Trump's second administration goes much further. If a picture is worth a thousand words, just see the first row in the Trump's possession occupied by founders and executive directors of great technological ones – including Amazon, Meta and X. This favor treatment says everything – even gave more priority than candidates to integrate the presidential cabinet. And although they were in the background, the presence of the chiefs of the great oil companies and the large financial firms was also noticeable. These images sent a lighter message than any verbal statement: this US government is not just “good for business ”; It is a business in itself. It has taken to a new extreme that «The Business of America Is Business» (the business of America is business). It is the new consensus of Washington. Of course, businesses have always had a leading role in the history of the United States. The first permanent settlement in North America was founded by a corporation, the company of Virginia; and the Dutch company of the Western Indies controlled much of the transatlantic slave trade and built strong and settlements in the territories under their domain. They were not mere public-private alliances: they were governments literally. And the Eastern Indies Company, which established for almost a century the British colonial domain over the Indian subcontine British India and a member of the company, in the end it ended up acquitted). The story gives reasons to think that the companies are, in the best case, a double -edged sword. Business logic leaves little room for freedom (except for the few who are at the top). For a company there are only two types of human beings: workers and consumers. The former as supplies for production; The second as buyers of goods or services. In both cases, the only function of the people is to help maximize the value for shareholders. This implies keeping labor costs and high demand for the means that is. There is no place for loyalty, community or individual rights. An high American manager may receive a juicy compensation when leaving the company, but workers are dismissed at will. And consumers go through being fortunate, whose lives are enriched buying products that yearn Gains by addiction. The doponte «Like», the infinite scrolling and algorithmic viralization are guarantee that abandoning the platform causes a similar discomfort to cut the consumption of a drug. There are no controls and counterweights, or accountability mechanisms, or protections against the invasion of personal life. A simple click when registering on the platforms submits millions of people to private autocracy. And that nobody is fooled: self -critics is what they are. Perhaps the markets are a matter of negotiation between free and equal parts, but companies (as Ronald Coase taught us) are a matter of central control. Among the private islands of corporate autocracy and democratic self -government there has always been a tension, And the luck ran by the past states of the past suggests that this time it will not end well. The rebellions and riots against the Eastern Indies company led the British government to take direct control of the subcontinent and, finally, dissolve the company. In other places, colonial companies ruled with a often implacable hand, hiding in legal mechanisms that exempt them from responsibilities, before succumbing to excess debts or poor management. In North America, the statutes of the colonial companies became more important than the Constitution itself, limiting the Executive Power. Mainlight business outside the government is increasingly difficult, and not only in the United States. The perspective of seeking public power to eliminate controls to private power is too tempting for business leaders with enough time and money. Now that we have seen the companies take over the Government in broad daylight, the only options we have are to democratize companies or abandon any claim of democracy. Katharina Pistotor, Professor of Comparative Law at the Law Faculty of the University of Columbia, She is the author of The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality (Princeton University Press, 2019).
© Project Syndicate 1995–2025. Translation: Esteban Flamini