The CEOs of the world, united!

Capitalism focused on shareholders meant that what was good for business was good for everyone. (“Everyone” was not supposed to mean the inequality of income reaching historical heights). This belief, in turn, raised the titans of the industry of Jamie Dimon and Mark Zuckerberg to Jack Welch and Warren Buffett as the most powerful voices on the planet. The real decisions were made in Davos or Sun Valley, not DC or Brussels. Politics was a drawback. For decades – until companies like Microsoft and Google are well accessible to the antitrust law – technological companies have ignored Washington and did not even pressure. Why bother?

As confidence has dropped for institutions as a whole but increased for business leaders, even social change movements were pushed by CEOs. Managers like the former Levi CEO, Chip Bergh, and the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods, Lauren Hobart, spoke in favor of subjects such as firearms or equity.

Other organizations, political groups and communities have followed the example of companies – and this seemed to work for business: less than five years ago, at the height of the pandemic and the Matter Black Lives demonstrations, the Edelman Trust barometer showed that employees of all generations were 7.0 to 9.5 times more likely to be attracted to a company that took a position on key issues. Even if you do not agree with politicians, the fact is that the leaders knew that they were fully authorized To make these decisions regardless of.

Quick advance until today. While the rich are enriched and stock market assessments are increasingly linked to a small group of business giants, the managers of these companies have more economic power than ever. And yet, they have willingly and shocking their ability to use it (except, of course, when they really join the administration, like the good old Elon).

It would be hilarious if it was not so terrifying: the daily parade of CEO with literal gold gifts – Hello Tim Cook! -While they bow and scratch to the President of the United States, “investments” reflecting horses in the United States which are unlikely to materialize in exchange for not having been taxed or humiliated publicly during a given month. Unlike other organizations that have a limited lever effect – non -profit organizations, universities and now they would like you to think, Congress – these guys have the weight to resist. But they do not – or will not – even as their (CEO of Intel, Lip -Bu Tan), his work has directly threatened by the president, and with another, the CEO of Nvidia, Jensen Huang, could soon register to pay a regular vig to Uncle Sam.

Many leaders no doubt see it kissing like a tactic. Be nice, stay under the radar, and everything will be good one day soon. Then we can return to our regularly planned capitalism. But this is not how business leaders have ever acted in the United States, they have fallen at will, for the better or for the worst because they could be able.

If the CEOs have really united, they could use this market power to put pressure on the president and his team to leave their chaotic and arbitrary approach to the management of the economy to that which incorporates at least rational thought.

So what could these CEOs do, instead of flattery and humiliation? They could work together instead of letting their power be fragmented.

They could use their voices collectively – just as they have done several times before in the event of a problem. Last year (before the elections), the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, publicly spoke of income inequality. Last April, when prices were threatened, the corporate round table spoke – and had an impact. But now that the prices are real… crickets.

They could say – noisily and in the world as a group – that the dismissal of the non -supporter analyst responsible for the country’s financial data will make anyone who trusts that all that business people say is true.

They might say that businessmen are better in business than politicians (even if these politicians also manage a business at the same time) and that advice and shareholders already have the fiduciary obligation to do the right thing.

They could talk about how this chaotic tariff cycle makes the budget impossible, plan or hire when they have no idea of their costs and that consequently, many of their financial projections are no longer healthy.

They could look at their power instead of giving it.

They could try to cooperate – so that they do not lose the power to compete.

After all, as a famous author said one day, they have nothing to lose only their chains.

The opinions expressed in the Fortune.com comments are only the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.