3 ms·
> absolutely do I'm not convinced. There is no coherence in their decisions, well any more than tossing out red meat. We can't even call them protectionist pol
by CalChris 1y ago
> absolutely do
I'm not convinced. There is no coherence in their decisions, well any more than tossing out red meat. We can't even call them protectionist policies. It's just populism.
Still, I agree about isolationist. But we started down that road with W and are now running off that cliff with Trump. Not coherently but enthusiastically.
- Spivak 1y agoLook, I'm not agreeing with this admin's policy direction, and I certainly don't want the world they envision that this policy will drive us toward—there's plenty of reasonable skepticism that it won't even have the desired knock on effects they're hoping for, but I do think the folks at the helm know broadly what the levers they're pulling do. I worry the level of stupidity that their critics project on them is both inaccurate and is so severe as to essentially excuse their actions and absolve them of any responsibility for them.
- CalChris 1y agoWe disagree. To reduce it to a few words, I think that you see policy (even if misguided policy) and I just see populism, entertainment if you will. I think the purpose of the article is to remind us what mercantilism is. But again, I don't see this as mercantilism which has a coherence, and instead just as populism which doesn't. Putting a heroin addict in charge of Health and Human Services and shutting down vaccine development is not policy. It's populism.