Trump’s Economic Policy Is More Radical Than You Think

From the start, one of the inevitable reality of US President Donald Trump was his frantic preoccupation. For those who support it, the tremendous pace of Trump’s business schedule was a distinctive feature of its success.

For others, though, Trump’s rapid ads, orders and initiatives in seeking to achieve an increasing radical economic and political agenda are a fundamental and unfamiliar challenge: no sooner from Trump dominates the news with one topic, which is called to another, and leaves his critics routinely.

From the start, one of the inevitable reality of US President Donald Trump was his frantic preoccupation. For those who support it, the tremendous pace of Trump’s business schedule was a distinctive feature of its success.

For others, though, Trump’s rapid ads, orders and initiatives in seeking to achieve an increasing radical economic and political agenda are a fundamental and unfamiliar challenge: no sooner from Trump dominates the news with one topic, which is called to another, and leaves his critics routinely.

To intelligence, he thought of the completely improvised and non -fruitful Trump summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, and his attack on the Smithsonian Foundation on his alleged focus on slavery, and the Fed Police Request in Washington in June.

Think of Trump pushing Texas and other countries led by Republicans to Jerianander from their electoral maps, and his weapon to the Prosecutor’s Office (as shown in the launch of the interview texts between the Deputy Prosecutor Todd Blanche, his former national office, his national lawyer, and his office in “Hun Trump”. Advisor, John Bolton.

All these developments occurred in a little more than a week. Each of them is taken separately, each of these is worthy of deep national discussion, but it seems that the approach of the previous reality TV star towards power is strategically designed to prevent this, allowing him to plow forward.

However, I am not amazed at their failure to generate a discussion as I am about another matter exactly: Trump’s attack on the foundations of the American economic system, which has never been unparalleled about 80 years ago. One may expect courage to oppose this, or at least loudly calls for clarity over the logical basis behind these moves – not only from Trump’s usual critics between the two centers and the left, as well as traditional conservatives, major businesses and the armed class in general.

It seems that every week brings news about great disguise, if unprecedented, for the United States government’s commitment to what Americans generally call the free market capitalism. This sign has always been an exaggeration, but it nevertheless embodies a prominent advantage in the country’s political economy in the post -war era: the government during this time, especially in light of the republican administrations, has promoted the idea that the private institution is responsible for producing wealth in the United States, while the role of the state is to create a stable political environment – promoting needs and motivation to others in a political manner, and is not waived.

Trump’s assault on this preparation began with his campaign against the Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, and therefore, this traditionally independent institution. The president recently nominated a party on the bank’s council and tried to topple another member, Lisa Cook, apparently a transparent political basis, claiming that she participated in fraud on the mortgage.

Last week, after weeks of unimaginable personal attacks by Trump and pressure on low interest rates, Powell indicated that he is likely to be given the president’s desire in September. The stock market jumped in response, but many analysts have warned that Trump’s interference in the interest rates process is badly angry for the American economy.

Trump’s recent measures attacked more basic principles of free market capitalism in the United States. The first was his chaotic imposition of high definitions on a group of countries to levels that have not been seen since the pre -war era. His administration has implemented this while continuing to pretend that other countries – not American companies and local consumers – will pay for definitions. All the time, Washington was not transparent on how to use the revenues of these drawings.

After that, Trump announced last week that the United States government would get nearly 10 percent ownership in Intel, a former leader in the small chips that fought badly to keep up with competition. This came shortly after a short period of time as it might be one time arrangement, no matter how unusual, when Trump requires two leading micro-chips in the country-NVIDIA and AMD-to achieve 15 percent of its revenues on sales of its strategic sensitive processors to China. Earlier this month, Trump also granted an Apple exemption from a 100 percent tariff for chips after the company promised to invest $ 100 billion in manufacturing in the United States.

It was not long before that Republican politicians, business leaders and conservative media such as Fox New were ASTIR because Zahran Mamdani, a self -democratic socialist, is elected the country’s economic capital, New York City. But the structural effects of Mamdani’s mysterious socialist proposals, such as the transfer of free buses, are shrinking compared to the scope of the Trump initiative to change the country’s political economy.

like Washington Post “Some Republicans and Libertarians have complained that Trump’s movements of transactions are a betrayal of the traditional commitment of the Republican Party to policies in the free market … but the Republican Party and legislators in the corporate board or C-Suites have been largely calm.” Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street Corporation, the three largest shares in Intel, did not want, mailComment requests.

Some of us are due to the conservatives ’reluctance to criticize Trump because of these radical economic changes, certainly for their fear of angering a leader who is rushing to seek revenge against critics and imagined opponents. Their reservation may also be due to their general enthusiasm for the tax discounts of the wealthy Trump signed.

Another problem that hinders criticism from this quarter, though, may be just the unusual situation that Trump has created – and how difficult it is to place a name on a system that is assembled together, without any clear or coherent political vision.

Although Trump will abandon the socialist mark, some analysts have issued a “state capitalism” sign to restructure on the current. There is something for this. Historically, this description has been applied to a wide range of regimes, from Nazi Germany to contemporary China and even modern European countries such as France. At least, state capitalism refers to the strong strategic participation of the government in the economy and in the main industries, as well as the priorities of the state’s status of future economic growth through politics, organization and investment.

Beyond slogans like “America First”, it is difficult to see a long -term logic of Trump’s economic intervention. China publicly pushes the state’s capital model with will to control what industries see in the future, including electric cars, green energy, artificial intelligence and robots.

The time will only determine whether Beijing has hit a profitable strategy, especially given what economists see as chronic worse for capital and excessive features in many industries preferred by the Chinese state. What seems more clear, at least early in Trump’s second state, although his policies prefer old industries to strengthen new industries. In one of the commercial negotiations after the other, Trump insisted that other countries buy more oil, gas and agricultural products, as if this will continue to push the country’s economy to the future.

In fact, Trump’s approach to energy issues may provide the best key to understanding his economic policy. Another week was wandering on Friday by order to stop working on the Great Great Wind Farm that will provide electricity to Connecticut Wood Island. When he asked to explain the reason, the best answer is that Lee Zildin, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, can call during an interview with Fox News: “The president is not a wind love.”

What seems that this confirms that a lot of decision -making of the Trump administration does not depend on strong economic analysis or consider the discussion between qualified experts well, but on his whims. There is a name for a political system that rules this way – called personal ruling.