As a U.S. Senator from Ohio, Vance diverged from traditional Reagan-era Republicanism by being skeptical of free markets, critical of globalization, distrustful of big corporations, and expressing a willingness to use government interventions to change the corporate landscape.
Modern economic populism started in 2008 and gained traction over the years as more people felt left behind by globalization, economic inequality, and the unrealized promises of the traditional political establishment.
Populists like former president Donald Trump and Vance rose in popularity because they were willing to challenge existing economic conditions that led to inflation and economic uncertainty and advocate for policies aimed at benefitting ordinary people over elites.
Like Trump, Vance advocates for economic nationalism that focuses on bringing jobs back to the U.S. and reducing reliance on foreign countries. But what effect will that have on high-income earners who leverage free trade, globalization, and business deregulation to build and sustain wealth?
Vance is a former venture capitalist and tech investor with ties to Silicon Valley. However, Vance is no fan of Big Tech.
Earlier this year, Vance said that early-stage startups struggled to grow and posed a challenge to more established tech companies because “they existed in a fundamentally noncompetitive market.” He also said the lack of competition in the tech industry harmed opportunities for innovation and its workers.
During his U.S. Senate campaign, Vance proposed repealing a law that protects social media and other websites from being held legally responsible for content posted by their users, commonly known as “Section 230”. Under Vance’s plan, Section 230 would safeguard smaller platforms but limit protections for larger tech companies.
Breaking Up Google
He posted on X, “Long overdue, but it’s time to break Google up. This matters far more than any election integrity issue.”
According to Forbes, there are 342 billionaires worth a combined $2.6 trillion, more than any other industry. As an economic cohort, they stand to gain and lose if Vance influences Trump on Big Tech regulations.
“His (Vance) support of overzealous, antitrust actions would burden key industries, particularly the tech industry,” Winegarden said. “These actions will hamper one of the U.S.’ prime competitive advantages in the global marketplace to the detriment of broad-based economic growth.”
Not Too Big To Fail
Departing from traditional Reagan-era Republicans, Vance teamed up with Senate Democrats last year to advance legislation that would crack down on bank executives when their companies fail. It would also make it harder for big banks to acquire smaller or weaker banks.
Vance also co-sponsored bills that would rein in credit card swipe fees, end tax-free mergers, and dissuade banks from limiting services to sectors Republicans said some lenders discriminate against, such as energy producers and firearms businesses.
Raising Taxes on Some Big Institutions
Vance’s economic populism suggests he might be in favor of raising taxes on big institutions, like colleges and universities, or large tech companies as part of a comprehensive regulatory reform.
Raising taxes on endowments at elite universities could indirectly impact donor patterns. For example, if universities have less money to allocate for research and scholarships, it might reduce the perceived value and prestige of large donations.
In addition, if universities have less money for financial aid, families who send their children to these institutions may pay higher tuition costs or have reduced access to certain programs.
Immigration
Vance shares former president Donald Trump’s immigration policies. Speaking to ABC News recently, Vance called for “taking a sequential approach” to achieving their stated goal of deporting 20 million immigrants by starting with 1 million.
While running for Congress in 2022, Vance said there was a “crisis” on the nation’s southern border and called for funding and building a border wall.
“His intention to conduct mass deportations, while an economic policy, would have adverse economic ramifications including greater shortages of goods, particularly agricultural products,” Winegarden said. “It would put increased pressure on prices. These impacts would be bad for overall affordability and bad for the markets.”
Editor’s note on election coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on GOBankingRates.com.
