6 ms·

Can anybody explain in a rational way why the US gov would want to revert to a mercantilist trade policy in the 21st century? It seems to me that they're undoin

Can anybody explain in a rational way why the US gov would want to revert to a mercantilist trade policy in the 21st century? It seems to me that they're undoing a hundred years of international development to become the de-facto trade and security hegemony with no real upside. Why?

hottakesbun 2y ago
The best answer is a reference from All the President's Men: "The truth is these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."
jameskilton 2y ago
[flagged]
- loloquwowndueo 2y ago
  > It's vitally important to separate out "US Gov" with "Donald Trump" But they’re operating as one and the same. Or to put it in question form? What’s the government doing to stop the “king” from wrecking the country the government is supposed to serve?
  - wetpaws 2y ago
    [dead]
  - JackFr 2y ago
    The impotence of Congress is astonishing. Constitutionally the tariff power is exclusive to Congress, and Trump is exercising it only through emergency powers. Congress could end this easily had they a mind to. Presumably someone could make a challenge to the Supreme Court, but IANAL so it's not clear who has the standing to sue. As a former Republican, and a Reagan conservative the utter cowardice and corruption of the Republican party nauseates me. No principles, no ethics.
  - CodeMage 2y ago
    > What’s the government doing to stop the “king” from wrecking the country the government is supposed to serve? Nothing, because the government can't actually do anything in this situation. Trump's regime exploited the inherent weakness of every government, known from the times of Plato's Republic: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The government enforces its laws against general populace by means of monopoly on violence. If you and I break the law, we face the consequences outlined by the law. If we continually refuse to comply with those consequences, we will eventually be subjected to state-sanctioned violence until we do so. But what happens if the government does not follow its own laws? Who enforces those laws? Sure, there are one or more entities whose job is to perform that enforcement, but those entities are also part of the government. What happens when they don't do that job? The US government is structured in a way that is meant to mitigate that risk. There are different branches, and checks and balances, and all that stuff kids learn in civics classes and immigrants like me learn when we want to apply for naturalization. But these measures only mitigate the risk. They don't remove it completely, because it's ultimately impossible to remove. Trump's regime has been allowed to circumvent these mitigations and, as a result, we are now in a situation that cannot be resolved by conventional means. If parts of the government try to resolve the constitutional crisis by following the Rule of Law, it will end up being ignored by those parts of the government that are already ignoring the Rule of Law. If those parts try to resolve it without following the Rule of Law, then what's the difference between them and the regime that caused the constitutional crisis in the first place?
thorncorona 2y ago
inflate our debt away
daedrdev 2y ago
[flagged]
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
John Stewart had a pretty good interview with Oren Cass that helped me understand a bit about what the Trump administration might be thinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgEQeLR-M0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgEQeLR-M0g Also Money & Macro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ts5wJ6OfzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ts5wJ6OfzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-2VilC9EzI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-2VilC9EzI
- vaidhy 2y ago
  I found it hard to understand the fundamental belief of Oren that the other countries are free-loading off US, when US encouraged/forced those countries to be US production factories. They are either free-loading or US made them to be export oriented so that US can maintain its dollar status. Saying both are true seems disingenuous.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    Yes, I think that this is the fundamental paradox that this "new right" viewpoint will have to grapple with. If you want tribute from other countries, it basically means you want them to send you free stuff, which undercuts your domestic production. If you want to maintain a trade surplus like China, then that means you want to send stuff to other countries and accept less in return. You can only have it one way or the other; those can't both be seen as freeloading.
airstrike 2y ago
Here's the best explanation I've found: https://x.com/BigJohn043/status/1907901081209766379 https://x.com/BigJohn043/status/1907901081209766379 It's a very good analysis. However, it does not explain why the administration used the formula they did in establishing the rates per country and why they used a list of TLDs instead of actual countries, leading them to impose tariffs on an island inhabited only by penguins.
- svara 2y ago
  Not sure it's such a good analysis? He's just saying it's a tax on consumption. Is that a good thing? Importantly he's ignoring all the second order effects of disrupting international supply chains. And the mitigating factor he notes, that it makes the dollar appreciate, is empirically not correct, the opposite is happening; a lot of trade is denominated in USD anyway.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > Here's the best explanation I've found: https://x.com/BigJohn043/status/1907901081209766379 https://x.com/BigJohn043/status/1907901081209766379 Yeah: > First, we are getting ripped off in global trade. So Americans buying whatever stuff they want is getting "ripped off"? > We could tax the rich more, but the world learned in the post WW2 era that doesn't work very well. ??? The post-WW2 years were some of the most prosperous in the US, and the high tax rates did not hinder that. When Clinton raised rates in the 1990s there were predictions of 'collapse', but things continue chugging along. Inequality decreased during the post-WW2 years up to Reagan. > So the short answer is that tariffs are a pretty efficient tax. Not sure how accurate this is, but they're certainly regressive. And if folks have a finite income, and prices go up so each unit purchased is more expensive, then logically won't that mean fewer units will be purchased/produced? If fewer units are produced then fewer workers are needed, so layoffs may be more likely.
treetalker 2y ago
The government is not a reasoning individual. There are many explanations why that goal might be pursued (whether rightly or wrongly, intentionally or unintentionally). One good explanation, though, is usually that one or more groups of one or more actors who have power in the system find certain actions and/or decisions to have the systemic effect of benefiting them, regardless of whether the governed (or the system itself — institutionalism) benefit. I won't go so far as to claim that we are in a Manchurian Candidate scenario, but I also cannot exclude that possibility.
- hottakesbun 2y ago
  > I won't go so far as to claim that we are in a Manchurian Candidate scenario, but I also cannot exclude that possibility. You probably know this already, but you don't need to. The relevant question is not "Is the president working on behalf of America's adversaries?"; rather it is "If he was, what would he be doing differently?"
  - jfengel 2y ago
    While I sympathize with the idea, an actual traitor could be doing even more harm. An actual traitor, for example, would have just flat-out canceled everything we're sending to Ukraine, and demanded everything we've given back. As bad as this is (and it's very, very bad), it could be even worse.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - verzali 2y ago
      Um, that sounds pretty much like what trump actually did.
    - treetalker 2y ago
      Unless not wreaking more immediate harm (or taking certain actions, like the one described) enables the wreaking of more harm over time, or taking further actions that result in a superior future strategic advantage or accomplishment that outweighs the former. (One possibility among others, no doubt.)
knowaveragejoe 2y ago
It isn't some complicated masterstroke. The adults are not in the room anymore. https://www.infinitescroll.us/p/there-is-no-plan-theyre-just-morons https://www.infinitescroll.us/p/there-is-no-plan-theyre-just...
- soupfordummies 2y ago
  it's getting harder each day to discount that theory. It's also harder to tell if this is more or less harmful than the other terrifying theories such as: -the whole elon/curtis yarvin thing -just burning the building down so you can loot it on the way out (aka plain old greed) -"hey guys trump is a russian asset"
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Double-checked and that’s quite strong. Crux of the argument: https://xcancel.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1907559189234196942 https://xcancel.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/19075591892341969...
aaronbrethorst 2y ago
I found this theory from Josh Marshall to be pretty compelling: WTAF is Going On? In Search of the Plan Behind Trump’s Global Economic Crisis https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wtaf-is-going-on-in-search-of-the-plan-behind-trumps-global-economic-crisis https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wtaf-is-going-on-in-sea...
Supermancho 2y ago
The targeted reduction in US influence across the globe, does seem intentional. This is not specific to Trump. What is gained by reducing a US influence/footprint? The resources used to maintain that footprint. Why? To focus them, which increases impact and minimizes vulnerabilities. Having a Navy that patrols the worldwide seas is less useful when you want to devalue imports. Having a Navy that patrols the worldwide seas is vulnerable to drones and other techniques that effectively counter the protection smaller groups of ships can provide. This also reduces the expectation that the US might get involved in a conflict, if less US assets are visiting every corner of the seas. Now you need less small ships to be made and can aggregate these assets in potentially hotspot conflict areas. An opponent can't disrupt shipping if the US has prematurely done it to themselves (and the world). Removing the US from NATO reduces the chance of a long range exchange that the US will have to participate in, to the detriment of its own resources (missiles, air power, ships, manpower, etc). This all leads to indicators of a large scale conflict being planned, decades out. I suspect Trump is hamfistedly enacting policies based on some grand long term plan that he is directed to participate in. As usual, he's making a mess, to get as much done as possible. Why? To take credit ofc. Edit: This is a thought experiment, not some sort of factual accounting. If you have a better idea other than "duhr Trump is dumb", share it.
- soupfordummies 2y ago
  >This all leads to indicators of a large scale conflict being planned, decades out. by whom and for whom though?
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    China or Russia or Middle Eastern interests (kicked off by Iran/Israel or whoever) or maybe even some other entity that will form from revolution. There are a large number of threats and nothing has seemed to slow the growth of potential danger zones.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    I do wonder who controls the Fed, ultimately. There was a congressman somewhere around 20 years ago who investigated military waste and was on youtube a lot. When he turned to a reporter and said he was going after the Fed next, he resigned in about 10 days citing his family's best interests. Trump wanted to force the Fed to cut rates during his first term and he wants to now, but he can't "for some reason". I think the continued independence of the Fed speaks to an invisible hand. I don't know how it works, only that this hand controls a quadrillion dollar economies and doesn't care about POTUS whims. Yes it's conspiracy-theory land, but this is something I consider when contextualizing world events.
bitshiftfaced 2y ago
JD Vance outlined the administration's view on globalization here: https://youtu.be/U1bd-D1PIZg?si=8oECgV3qYYEbdXy3 https://youtu.be/U1bd-D1PIZg?si=8oECgV3qYYEbdXy3 In summary he claims that there are two issues: 1) People had thought that globalization would mean that high-income countries would remain at the top of the value chain and design products and low-income companies would produce the simple things and manufacture. But, he claims, there are network effects to manufacturing. Those countries low on the value chain, once they learn how how to build things, are better equipped to rise in the value chain and replace companies completely. 2) He claims that companies became addicted to cheap labor from overseas, and it's stifling productivity gains. He brings in the analogy of how higher minimum wage tends to motivate fast food restaurants to develop better kiosk technology.
- shiandow 2y ago
  He's using arguments in favour of raising minimum wage?
  - bozhark 2y ago
    They think they can pretend that raising the minimum wage is anything but a good service for the entire economy. They do not pretend to make sense
    - lliamander 2y ago
      Minimum wage is possibly the worst, most ham-fisted way of driving productivity gains. Minimum wage and similar regulations are why so many jobs have shifted overseas in the first place. The "productivity gains" have almost entirely consisted in improved logistics for mobilizing cheaper foreign labor, not actually making domestic workers any more productive.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > But, he claims, there are network effects to manufacturing. Those countries low on the value chain, once they learn how how to build things, are better equipped to rise in the value chain and replace companies completely. So you place tariffs on specific goods that you wish to strategically produce domestically. * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good Doing a blanket tariff on (e.g.) Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—which hits clothing (see Nike, Adidas stock prices)—is not helpful. Why is the US interested in making sneakers and t-shirts? Doing specific tariffs for strategic / national security purposes is one thing, but that is obviously not what is happening here: and it is obvious because tariffs were put on the island of Diego Garcia, whose on inhabitants are US and UK military personnel, and Heard and McDonald Islands in the middle of nowhere whose only inhabitants are penguins.
prepend 2y ago
I visited Amsterdam a few years ago and the hotel had this cool wallpaper that had history of Amsterdam. I read about corporations and trade and banking and was surprised at how huge, rich, and long lived they are. I think the smart move isn’t in being the hegemon. It’s having a hegemon that protects your interests and allows you to thrive. That way you don’t pay for a massive military and whatnot. Maybe this is the US backing out of its commitment to have military bases all over the world in exchange for wealth. If Europe steps up and becomes hegemon then the US can cruise by with 1% gdp for military and maybe set up universal healthcare. Although they’d likely end up as yachts for billionaires or something. Anyway, I think in 100 years, I’d rather be Netherlands than the US. More peace, more money.
- taraparo 2y ago
  In a hundred years Netherlands is probably underwater.
bozhark 2y ago
Because they are dumb. Seriously, stupid.
mystified5016 2y ago
In general, Americans and especially our businessmen and politicians have totally and utterly lost the ability to consider long term problems. The consequences simply don't matter. It's the next guy's problem, it's the next administration's problem, it's the next generation's problem. If your actions don't have immediate consequences, there are no consequences for you. The implicit assumption is that you do not care even one iota if somebody else has to deal with the consequences of your actions so long as you, personally, don't. This is a widespread cultural failing, and the root of a lot of our problems. The recent actions of the US Gov make more sense with the understanding that all of the people involved are 100% certain they will never, ever face any consequences for anything they do. And they are largely correct. Most of them will never see any negative impacts for the suffering they cause. Accountability is for lesser people and our politicians are fully exempt from all laws and due process, apparently. They believe that the US is un-challenged and invulnerable. They genuinely think the rest of the world will either fall to their knees and begin licking boots, or will just go away. US supremacy must remain unchallenged and unquestioned, and will always be so. There's really no deeper rationale or strategy here. No one has considered the long term consequences because consequences don't exist.
- orwin 2y ago
  It's the consequence of having 'limited liability' for every company. People take advantage of those, and it start to define your business culture. I understand limited liability is useful when going public, but allowing it for private companies is imho a huge mistake, and just me regulated. Or rather, to please my anti regulation friends: the regulation that prevents debt owners to go after executive/capitalists who owe them should be lifted.
jcranmer 2y ago
There are, in isolation, arguments that someone could give for these actions to levy a rational basis. But given that the administration's own statements are frequently inconsistent with its actions, the best explanation for this is also the dumbest: the country is run by a toddler throwing a tantrum. The tantrums don't make sense (ever see a toddler throwing a tantrum); so stop trying to make sense of them.
lenerdenator 2y ago
When someone else (read: China) gets good at the game, change the rules. Having lots of people who will work for next-to-nothing is a cheat code of sorts in the current world economic order. It's put the old guard, mainly the West, at a disadvantage. It's caused great economic hardship in the US for people who didn't have the connections or resources to get out of working more basic manufacturing jobs. The political and shareholder classes saw those people as expendable in the move towards a purely capitalist America, one where it was okay to move lots of manufacturing to a geopolitical rival because it made number go up. Trump's not wrong about that. The problem is that he's a creature of that purely capitalist America, who likely has a severe personality disorder, and he's just harnessing the discontent of the affected to build up his own power and wealth. The thing about being the de-facto trade and security hegemony is that it's a pain in the ass. No one's survived being that. Not the British, Romans, or anyone else. There's also the fact that the rest of the West will of course trade out adherence to the more democratic and progressive values when it comes to benefit them. Nordstream 2 was announced after Russia invaded Georgia and it became obvious that Putin was a tyrant. Europeans were more than happy to watch World Cup matches in Russia and Qatar, which were placed there purely as a result of graft at a major European institution, FIFA. Italy joined the Chinese Belt and Road initiative and only dropped out in 2023. There are other examples but those three stick out immediately in my mind. Trump, and the illiberal forces of the world in general, just want to adapt this reality as the status quo while making money for themselves off of it. Alliances and values are secondary to what earns money at the moment in question. If you are a country like the US, with a lot of resources, you can outcompete people in that dog-eat-dog world.
- testing22321 2y ago
  > It's caused great economic hardship in the US for people who didn't have the connections or resources to get out of working more basic manufacturing jobs No, the hardships in the us are caused by the 1% hoarding wealth. Don’t blame anyone else in the world
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    … and they hoard wealth by paying a guy in China a fraction of the cost for the same labor. In effect, Chinese workers crossed the American workers’ picket line. There’s a reason organized labor calls for solidarity.
saguntum 2y ago
Most explanations I've seen for it being rational if the goal is improving the economy or furthering American national interests reek of "sanewashing" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanewashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanewashing). The formula they used for calculating tariff rates other countries impose on us is nonsensical and potentially LLM generated: https://www.axios.com/2025/04/03/trump-tariffs-formula-calculated https://www.axios.com/2025/04/03/trump-tariffs-formula-calcu... In my opinion, they're just using the "reciprocity" argument to paper over more nefarious goals. Onshoring certain critical supply chains and using targeted tariffs to achieve that may make some sense, but that's not what's going on with these across-the-board taxes punishing what are becoming former US allies. From a self-interest perspective, it may be rational if you're optimizing for increasing your raw power at the expense of American national interest. My understanding is that tariff exemptions can be granted unilaterally: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-tariffs-trade-war-stock-market-04-03-2025/card/white-house-publishes-hundreds-of-tariff-exemptions-N7o4V7gxmuRUWOROnhqX https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-tariffs-trade-war-sto... so in a sense, the administration is holding both the disease and the cure unless Congress strips it of this power (unlikely). Crashing asset prices may also generate opportunities for rich people with large cash holdings to buy up assets on the cheap before inflation really takes hold. This is not directly related to tariffs necessarily, but one related theory I've thought about is how leaders stay in power in countries like Venezuela or North Korea. With hyperinflation and good shortages, your ability to procure basic necessities becomes more of a function of proximity to those in power with the ability to acquire goods through their monopoly on the use of violence. If you can't feed your family without being subservient to an authoritarian leader, you're probably less likely to help depose a dictator. I've thought about this a little in the context of the purging of top national security officials and how they're getting replaced with loyalists: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/us/politics/trump-meeting-laura-loomer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/us/politics/trump-meeting... I don't think we're there until we're there, but it feels like they're teeing things up for a 3rd term. If you have congress inept, friends in the highest court of the land, and functional control of the armed forces leadership, who is to stop you from declaring a national emergency and staying in power because of a crashing economy or a new war? The economic contagion of the Great Depression historically also preceded a huge change in the world order (WW2). If you're trying to change the world order irreparably or just scoop up some territory, you might try to do some economic decoupling first, as well. There was a small trade war about 5 years before real war broke out when Germany invaded Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Polish_customs_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Polish_customs_war
tsss 2y ago
https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2025/02/21/donald-trumps-economic-masterplan-unherd/ https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2025/02/21/donald-trumps-econ...
locopati 2y ago
Grift and theft, plain and simple. I don't know why people keep looking for rationality from Trump and his lackies. Their worldview ends with themselves, their power, their wealth.

hottakesbun 2y ago

The best answer is a reference from All the President's Men: "The truth is these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."

jameskilton 2y ago

[flagged]

loloquwowndueo 2y ago
> It's vitally important to separate out "US Gov" with "Donald Trump" But they’re operating as one and the same. Or to put it in question form? What’s the government doing to stop the “king” from wrecking the country the government is supposed to serve?
- wetpaws 2y ago
  [dead]
- JackFr 2y ago
  The impotence of Congress is astonishing. Constitutionally the tariff power is exclusive to Congress, and Trump is exercising it only through emergency powers. Congress could end this easily had they a mind to. Presumably someone could make a challenge to the Supreme Court, but IANAL so it's not clear who has the standing to sue. As a former Republican, and a Reagan conservative the utter cowardice and corruption of the Republican party nauseates me. No principles, no ethics.
- CodeMage 2y ago
  > What’s the government doing to stop the “king” from wrecking the country the government is supposed to serve? Nothing, because the government can't actually do anything in this situation. Trump's regime exploited the inherent weakness of every government, known from the times of Plato's Republic: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The government enforces its laws against general populace by means of monopoly on violence. If you and I break the law, we face the consequences outlined by the law. If we continually refuse to comply with those consequences, we will eventually be subjected to state-sanctioned violence until we do so. But what happens if the government does not follow its own laws? Who enforces those laws? Sure, there are one or more entities whose job is to perform that enforcement, but those entities are also part of the government. What happens when they don't do that job? The US government is structured in a way that is meant to mitigate that risk. There are different branches, and checks and balances, and all that stuff kids learn in civics classes and immigrants like me learn when we want to apply for naturalization. But these measures only mitigate the risk. They don't remove it completely, because it's ultimately impossible to remove. Trump's regime has been allowed to circumvent these mitigations and, as a result, we are now in a situation that cannot be resolved by conventional means. If parts of the government try to resolve the constitutional crisis by following the Rule of Law, it will end up being ignored by those parts of the government that are already ignoring the Rule of Law. If those parts try to resolve it without following the Rule of Law, then what's the difference between them and the regime that caused the constitutional crisis in the first place?

thorncorona 2y ago

inflate our debt away

daedrdev 2y ago

[flagged]

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

John Stewart had a pretty good interview with Oren Cass that helped me understand a bit about what the Trump administration might be thinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgEQeLR-M0g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgEQeLR-M0g Also Money & Macro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ts5wJ6OfzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ts5wJ6OfzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-2VilC9EzI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-2VilC9EzI

vaidhy 2y ago
I found it hard to understand the fundamental belief of Oren that the other countries are free-loading off US, when US encouraged/forced those countries to be US production factories. They are either free-loading or US made them to be export oriented so that US can maintain its dollar status. Saying both are true seems disingenuous.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  Yes, I think that this is the fundamental paradox that this "new right" viewpoint will have to grapple with. If you want tribute from other countries, it basically means you want them to send you free stuff, which undercuts your domestic production. If you want to maintain a trade surplus like China, then that means you want to send stuff to other countries and accept less in return. You can only have it one way or the other; those can't both be seen as freeloading.

airstrike 2y ago

Here's the best explanation I've found: https://x.com/BigJohn043/status/1907901081209766379 https://x.com/BigJohn043/status/1907901081209766379 It's a very good analysis. However, it does not explain why the administration used the formula they did in establishing the rates per country and why they used a list of TLDs instead of actual countries, leading them to impose tariffs on an island inhabited only by penguins.

svara 2y ago
Not sure it's such a good analysis? He's just saying it's a tax on consumption. Is that a good thing? Importantly he's ignoring all the second order effects of disrupting international supply chains. And the mitigating factor he notes, that it makes the dollar appreciate, is empirically not correct, the opposite is happening; a lot of trade is denominated in USD anyway.
throw0101c 2y ago
> Here's the best explanation I've found: https://x.com/BigJohn043/status/1907901081209766379 https://x.com/BigJohn043/status/1907901081209766379 Yeah: > First, we are getting ripped off in global trade. So Americans buying whatever stuff they want is getting "ripped off"? > We could tax the rich more, but the world learned in the post WW2 era that doesn't work very well. ??? The post-WW2 years were some of the most prosperous in the US, and the high tax rates did not hinder that. When Clinton raised rates in the 1990s there were predictions of 'collapse', but things continue chugging along. Inequality decreased during the post-WW2 years up to Reagan. > So the short answer is that tariffs are a pretty efficient tax. Not sure how accurate this is, but they're certainly regressive. And if folks have a finite income, and prices go up so each unit purchased is more expensive, then logically won't that mean fewer units will be purchased/produced? If fewer units are produced then fewer workers are needed, so layoffs may be more likely.

treetalker 2y ago

The government is not a reasoning individual. There are many explanations why that goal might be pursued (whether rightly or wrongly, intentionally or unintentionally). One good explanation, though, is usually that one or more groups of one or more actors who have power in the system find certain actions and/or decisions to have the systemic effect of benefiting them, regardless of whether the governed (or the system itself — institutionalism) benefit. I won't go so far as to claim that we are in a Manchurian Candidate scenario, but I also cannot exclude that possibility.

hottakesbun 2y ago
> I won't go so far as to claim that we are in a Manchurian Candidate scenario, but I also cannot exclude that possibility. You probably know this already, but you don't need to. The relevant question is not "Is the president working on behalf of America's adversaries?"; rather it is "If he was, what would he be doing differently?"
- jfengel 2y ago
  While I sympathize with the idea, an actual traitor could be doing even more harm. An actual traitor, for example, would have just flat-out canceled everything we're sending to Ukraine, and demanded everything we've given back. As bad as this is (and it's very, very bad), it could be even worse.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - verzali 2y ago
    Um, that sounds pretty much like what trump actually did.
  - treetalker 2y ago
    Unless not wreaking more immediate harm (or taking certain actions, like the one described) enables the wreaking of more harm over time, or taking further actions that result in a superior future strategic advantage or accomplishment that outweighs the former. (One possibility among others, no doubt.)

knowaveragejoe 2y ago

It isn't some complicated masterstroke. The adults are not in the room anymore. https://www.infinitescroll.us/p/there-is-no-plan-theyre-just-morons https://www.infinitescroll.us/p/there-is-no-plan-theyre-just...

soupfordummies 2y ago
it's getting harder each day to discount that theory. It's also harder to tell if this is more or less harmful than the other terrifying theories such as: -the whole elon/curtis yarvin thing -just burning the building down so you can loot it on the way out (aka plain old greed) -"hey guys trump is a russian asset"
ttyprintk 2y ago
Double-checked and that’s quite strong. Crux of the argument: https://xcancel.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/1907559189234196942 https://xcancel.com/JamesSurowiecki/status/19075591892341969...

aaronbrethorst 2y ago

I found this theory from Josh Marshall to be pretty compelling: WTAF is Going On? In Search of the Plan Behind Trump’s Global Economic Crisis https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wtaf-is-going-on-in-search-of-the-plan-behind-trumps-global-economic-crisis https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wtaf-is-going-on-in-sea...

Supermancho 2y ago

The targeted reduction in US influence across the globe, does seem intentional. This is not specific to Trump. What is gained by reducing a US influence/footprint? The resources used to maintain that footprint. Why? To focus them, which increases impact and minimizes vulnerabilities. Having a Navy that patrols the worldwide seas is less useful when you want to devalue imports. Having a Navy that patrols the worldwide seas is vulnerable to drones and other techniques that effectively counter the protection smaller groups of ships can provide. This also reduces the expectation that the US might get involved in a conflict, if less US assets are visiting every corner of the seas. Now you need less small ships to be made and can aggregate these assets in potentially hotspot conflict areas. An opponent can't disrupt shipping if the US has prematurely done it to themselves (and the world). Removing the US from NATO reduces the chance of a long range exchange that the US will have to participate in, to the detriment of its own resources (missiles, air power, ships, manpower, etc). This all leads to indicators of a large scale conflict being planned, decades out. I suspect Trump is hamfistedly enacting policies based on some grand long term plan that he is directed to participate in. As usual, he's making a mess, to get as much done as possible. Why? To take credit ofc. Edit: This is a thought experiment, not some sort of factual accounting. If you have a better idea other than "duhr Trump is dumb", share it.

soupfordummies 2y ago
>This all leads to indicators of a large scale conflict being planned, decades out. by whom and for whom though?
- Supermancho 2y ago
  China or Russia or Middle Eastern interests (kicked off by Iran/Israel or whoever) or maybe even some other entity that will form from revolution. There are a large number of threats and nothing has seemed to slow the growth of potential danger zones.
- Supermancho 2y ago
  I do wonder who controls the Fed, ultimately. There was a congressman somewhere around 20 years ago who investigated military waste and was on youtube a lot. When he turned to a reporter and said he was going after the Fed next, he resigned in about 10 days citing his family's best interests. Trump wanted to force the Fed to cut rates during his first term and he wants to now, but he can't "for some reason". I think the continued independence of the Fed speaks to an invisible hand. I don't know how it works, only that this hand controls a quadrillion dollar economies and doesn't care about POTUS whims. Yes it's conspiracy-theory land, but this is something I consider when contextualizing world events.

bitshiftfaced 2y ago

JD Vance outlined the administration's view on globalization here: https://youtu.be/U1bd-D1PIZg?si=8oECgV3qYYEbdXy3 https://youtu.be/U1bd-D1PIZg?si=8oECgV3qYYEbdXy3 In summary he claims that there are two issues: 1) People had thought that globalization would mean that high-income countries would remain at the top of the value chain and design products and low-income companies would produce the simple things and manufacture. But, he claims, there are network effects to manufacturing. Those countries low on the value chain, once they learn how how to build things, are better equipped to rise in the value chain and replace companies completely. 2) He claims that companies became addicted to cheap labor from overseas, and it's stifling productivity gains. He brings in the analogy of how higher minimum wage tends to motivate fast food restaurants to develop better kiosk technology.

shiandow 2y ago
He's using arguments in favour of raising minimum wage?
- bozhark 2y ago
  They think they can pretend that raising the minimum wage is anything but a good service for the entire economy. They do not pretend to make sense
  - lliamander 2y ago
    Minimum wage is possibly the worst, most ham-fisted way of driving productivity gains. Minimum wage and similar regulations are why so many jobs have shifted overseas in the first place. The "productivity gains" have almost entirely consisted in improved logistics for mobilizing cheaper foreign labor, not actually making domestic workers any more productive.
throw0101c 2y ago
> But, he claims, there are network effects to manufacturing. Those countries low on the value chain, once they learn how how to build things, are better equipped to rise in the value chain and replace companies completely. So you place tariffs on specific goods that you wish to strategically produce domestically. * https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/when-are-tariffs-good Doing a blanket tariff on (e.g.) Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—which hits clothing (see Nike, Adidas stock prices)—is not helpful. Why is the US interested in making sneakers and t-shirts? Doing specific tariffs for strategic / national security purposes is one thing, but that is obviously not what is happening here: and it is obvious because tariffs were put on the island of Diego Garcia, whose on inhabitants are US and UK military personnel, and Heard and McDonald Islands in the middle of nowhere whose only inhabitants are penguins.

prepend 2y ago

I visited Amsterdam a few years ago and the hotel had this cool wallpaper that had history of Amsterdam. I read about corporations and trade and banking and was surprised at how huge, rich, and long lived they are. I think the smart move isn’t in being the hegemon. It’s having a hegemon that protects your interests and allows you to thrive. That way you don’t pay for a massive military and whatnot. Maybe this is the US backing out of its commitment to have military bases all over the world in exchange for wealth. If Europe steps up and becomes hegemon then the US can cruise by with 1% gdp for military and maybe set up universal healthcare. Although they’d likely end up as yachts for billionaires or something. Anyway, I think in 100 years, I’d rather be Netherlands than the US. More peace, more money.

taraparo 2y ago
In a hundred years Netherlands is probably underwater.

bozhark 2y ago

Because they are dumb. Seriously, stupid.

mystified5016 2y ago

In general, Americans and especially our businessmen and politicians have totally and utterly lost the ability to consider long term problems. The consequences simply don't matter. It's the next guy's problem, it's the next administration's problem, it's the next generation's problem. If your actions don't have immediate consequences, there are no consequences for you. The implicit assumption is that you do not care even one iota if somebody else has to deal with the consequences of your actions so long as you, personally, don't. This is a widespread cultural failing, and the root of a lot of our problems. The recent actions of the US Gov make more sense with the understanding that all of the people involved are 100% certain they will never, ever face any consequences for anything they do. And they are largely correct. Most of them will never see any negative impacts for the suffering they cause. Accountability is for lesser people and our politicians are fully exempt from all laws and due process, apparently. They believe that the US is un-challenged and invulnerable. They genuinely think the rest of the world will either fall to their knees and begin licking boots, or will just go away. US supremacy must remain unchallenged and unquestioned, and will always be so. There's really no deeper rationale or strategy here. No one has considered the long term consequences because consequences don't exist.

orwin 2y ago
It's the consequence of having 'limited liability' for every company. People take advantage of those, and it start to define your business culture. I understand limited liability is useful when going public, but allowing it for private companies is imho a huge mistake, and just me regulated. Or rather, to please my anti regulation friends: the regulation that prevents debt owners to go after executive/capitalists who owe them should be lifted.

jcranmer 2y ago

There are, in isolation, arguments that someone could give for these actions to levy a rational basis. But given that the administration's own statements are frequently inconsistent with its actions, the best explanation for this is also the dumbest: the country is run by a toddler throwing a tantrum. The tantrums don't make sense (ever see a toddler throwing a tantrum); so stop trying to make sense of them.

lenerdenator 2y ago

When someone else (read: China) gets good at the game, change the rules. Having lots of people who will work for next-to-nothing is a cheat code of sorts in the current world economic order. It's put the old guard, mainly the West, at a disadvantage. It's caused great economic hardship in the US for people who didn't have the connections or resources to get out of working more basic manufacturing jobs. The political and shareholder classes saw those people as expendable in the move towards a purely capitalist America, one where it was okay to move lots of manufacturing to a geopolitical rival because it made number go up. Trump's not wrong about that. The problem is that he's a creature of that purely capitalist America, who likely has a severe personality disorder, and he's just harnessing the discontent of the affected to build up his own power and wealth. The thing about being the de-facto trade and security hegemony is that it's a pain in the ass. No one's survived being that. Not the British, Romans, or anyone else. There's also the fact that the rest of the West will of course trade out adherence to the more democratic and progressive values when it comes to benefit them. Nordstream 2 was announced after Russia invaded Georgia and it became obvious that Putin was a tyrant. Europeans were more than happy to watch World Cup matches in Russia and Qatar, which were placed there purely as a result of graft at a major European institution, FIFA. Italy joined the Chinese Belt and Road initiative and only dropped out in 2023. There are other examples but those three stick out immediately in my mind. Trump, and the illiberal forces of the world in general, just want to adapt this reality as the status quo while making money for themselves off of it. Alliances and values are secondary to what earns money at the moment in question. If you are a country like the US, with a lot of resources, you can outcompete people in that dog-eat-dog world.

testing22321 2y ago
> It's caused great economic hardship in the US for people who didn't have the connections or resources to get out of working more basic manufacturing jobs No, the hardships in the us are caused by the 1% hoarding wealth. Don’t blame anyone else in the world
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  … and they hoard wealth by paying a guy in China a fraction of the cost for the same labor. In effect, Chinese workers crossed the American workers’ picket line. There’s a reason organized labor calls for solidarity.

saguntum 2y ago

Most explanations I've seen for it being rational if the goal is improving the economy or furthering American national interests reek of "sanewashing" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanewashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanewashing). The formula they used for calculating tariff rates other countries impose on us is nonsensical and potentially LLM generated: https://www.axios.com/2025/04/03/trump-tariffs-formula-calculated https://www.axios.com/2025/04/03/trump-tariffs-formula-calcu... In my opinion, they're just using the "reciprocity" argument to paper over more nefarious goals. Onshoring certain critical supply chains and using targeted tariffs to achieve that may make some sense, but that's not what's going on with these across-the-board taxes punishing what are becoming former US allies. From a self-interest perspective, it may be rational if you're optimizing for increasing your raw power at the expense of American national interest. My understanding is that tariff exemptions can be granted unilaterally: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-tariffs-trade-war-stock-market-04-03-2025/card/white-house-publishes-hundreds-of-tariff-exemptions-N7o4V7gxmuRUWOROnhqX https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-tariffs-trade-war-sto... so in a sense, the administration is holding both the disease and the cure unless Congress strips it of this power (unlikely). Crashing asset prices may also generate opportunities for rich people with large cash holdings to buy up assets on the cheap before inflation really takes hold. This is not directly related to tariffs necessarily, but one related theory I've thought about is how leaders stay in power in countries like Venezuela or North Korea. With hyperinflation and good shortages, your ability to procure basic necessities becomes more of a function of proximity to those in power with the ability to acquire goods through their monopoly on the use of violence. If you can't feed your family without being subservient to an authoritarian leader, you're probably less likely to help depose a dictator. I've thought about this a little in the context of the purging of top national security officials and how they're getting replaced with loyalists: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/us/politics/trump-meeting-laura-loomer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/03/us/politics/trump-meeting... I don't think we're there until we're there, but it feels like they're teeing things up for a 3rd term. If you have congress inept, friends in the highest court of the land, and functional control of the armed forces leadership, who is to stop you from declaring a national emergency and staying in power because of a crashing economy or a new war? The economic contagion of the Great Depression historically also preceded a huge change in the world order (WW2). If you're trying to change the world order irreparably or just scoop up some territory, you might try to do some economic decoupling first, as well. There was a small trade war about 5 years before real war broke out when Germany invaded Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Polish_customs_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Polish_customs_war

tsss 2y ago

https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2025/02/21/donald-trumps-economic-masterplan-unherd/ https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2025/02/21/donald-trumps-econ...

locopati 2y ago

Grift and theft, plain and simple. I don't know why people keep looking for rationality from Trump and his lackies. Their worldview ends with themselves, their power, their wealth.