All the aff’s threats of populism have already taken effect so they can’t access any of their terminal impacts.

The negative effects of left-wing populism on economics and businesses have already been widely examined. For that reason, this paper looks only at right-leaning, pro-business leaders who employ populist strategies to see whether they fare better.This paper shows that the populist style, regardless of ideology, has negative effects on economies and businesses. The populist strategy of building intense voter loyalty through polarization leads to the decline of social trust, which is strongly correlated with GDP and entrepreneurship levels. Social cohesion also declines, which can increase social unrest. Personalized, often centralized government decisionmaking yields unpredictable policies, increasing uncertainty and risk. It also increases corruption and cronyism, a finding that is particularly strong in countries where these problems were previously less significant. Corruption serves as a distorting tax on most businesses, while cronyism tilts entire business sectors. Finally, the sidelining or delegitimizing of oversight institutions and the press leads the rule of law to degrade.The populist governing style substantially inhibits economic growth. According to a comprehensive study of populist leaders from 1900 to 2020 by economists Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick, and Christopher Trenesch, leaders governing in the populist style create a drag on growth of about 1 percent per year after a short honeymoon period. Countries governed by populists also have more volatile economies and are more likely to face serious financial crises. Moreover, regardless of how they posed while campaigning, most leaders adopting populism enact policies from both the left and the right when they come to power. They tend to embrace tariffs and economic nationalism while also giving away substantial government funds to build support with little regard for inflation and debt.Historically, some businesses do well under populism. In 1933, during a secret meeting in Berlin, nearly two dozen German industrialists backed Adolf Hitler’s party. In keeping with modern findings on populist cronyism, the industrialists’ returns in the spring after Hitler took power were between 5 and 8 percent higher than other firms’ returns. Of course, Jewish businesses faced expropriation, forced sales to whomever would buy in a hurry, and far worse fates. Meanwhile, many other German firms faced decidedly mixed financial as well as moral outcomes as they navigated Hitler’s populist leadership.Populism doesn’t affect all business sectors equally, and because the whims of politicians alter, it is impossible for business leaders to ensure that their firms remain in the favored category. The case study of India shows how small businesses have been devastated by Modi’s policies; his policy of removing large banknotes from the market caused a short-term 47 percent drop in revenue and major job losses. In Brazil under former president Jair Bolsonaro, small businesses benefited from reduced regulations and licensing requirements, as did agribusinesses in the Amazon Rainforest, but financial firms and externally focused corporations have faced extreme volatility. In Hungary under Orbán, some corporate arenas have been protected, but the entire private sector has been politicized, while some other sectors have been nationalized or face state monopolization.In all of these cases, remaining small or close to the ruling party did not offer lasting protection from politicization, upsetting the fair market. One of the problems with populist governments is that even for businesses that try to ride the tide by becoming close with the government, it is impossible to predict the course of the waves that follow.