Trumponomics and the danger of Perónism
For most critics from the left, Trump is ostensibly just another aloof Republican President who doesn’t care about the common man, who serves business interests at the expense of the common good and whose economic policies are animated by the spirit of trickle down economics.
However, intense partisanship and broad ideological differences complicate a more nuanced differentiation between Trump‘s interventionist populism and a more technocratic neoliberalism that preceded Trumponomics on the American Right.
It is notable that there are only in a handful of exotic cases (i.e Augusto Pinochet or Alberto Fujimori) where an authoritarian leader truly exhibits the self-restraint to relinquish government control over the economy rather than succumbing to his natural impulse to tighten the state‘s grip on free enterprise.
In that sense, Trump follows a predictable path because politicians who seek limitless power in every other political domain, won’t shy away from extending their reach to the free market as well. Instead, a typical authoritarian demagogue prefers to be above the free market, to control what he cannot control, to challenge independent institutions that were deliberately set up to shield the economy from imprudent politicization and improper interference.
In the past, Republican Presidents and candidates would suggest increased private competition, the reduction of distortive health subsidies, deregulation, private health savings accounts and many other market-compatible solutions to increase healthcare coverage and reduce the cost of healthcare in the United States.
Meanwhile, President Trump wants to directly dictate prices to drug manufacturers and thus import the worst practices from Europe. If Maga were truly so averse to Europe‘s political modus vivendi, as J.D Vance would have the world believe, it might be advisable to stay clear of price controls, one of the most calamitous Europe-inspired policies.
Alas, the President’s ambition to control prices doesn’t stop at drugs. If it were up to him, the government would also control the price of housing, mortgages and credit card interest rates.
The free flow of goods, services and labor is not only no longer promoted, but actively impaired. Tariffs, quotas, a hermetically sealed border and mass deportations inefficiently increase the cost of commerce and disincentize the inflow of human capital.
Rather than divesting from private enterprise, the Trump administration follows a state capitalist handbook by taking controlling stakes in private business like Intel.
Chip producers are coerced into constitutionally dubious pay to play agreements in order to avoid export controls in return for 15% of their profits, as if the absence of export controls should be rewarded. This is indicative of the mindset of a megalomaniac who assumes that the he should have total control over economic interactions by default and that he should, therefore, be lobbied, courted and paid off to let specific companies enjoy the perks of a free and open market.
CEOs are expected to pay homage to the President and those who won‘t are publicly admonished and immediately disfavored by the administration such as Exxon‘s CEO who dared to point out the dilapidated state of the Venezuelan oil industry.
While the administration laudably deregulates certain sectors of the economy, ideologically opposed industries, such as the renewable energy sector, face new regulatory hurdles.
Authoritarianism and neoliberalism are rarely compatible. It is yet another reason for conservatives to leave the populist era behind and to return to neoliberal economics and rescue the US economy from the whims of an authoritarian populist and the socialist designs of the political left.
However, intense partisanship and broad ideological differences complicate a more nuanced differentiation between Trump‘s interventionist populism and a more technocratic neoliberalism that preceded Trumponomics on the American Right.
It is notable that there are only in a handful of exotic cases (i.e Augusto Pinochet or Alberto Fujimori) where an authoritarian leader truly exhibits the self-restraint to relinquish government control over the economy rather than succumbing to his natural impulse to tighten the state‘s grip on free enterprise.
In that sense, Trump follows a predictable path because politicians who seek limitless power in every other political domain, won’t shy away from extending their reach to the free market as well. Instead, a typical authoritarian demagogue prefers to be above the free market, to control what he cannot control, to challenge independent institutions that were deliberately set up to shield the economy from imprudent politicization and improper interference.
In the past, Republican Presidents and candidates would suggest increased private competition, the reduction of distortive health subsidies, deregulation, private health savings accounts and many other market-compatible solutions to increase healthcare coverage and reduce the cost of healthcare in the United States.
Meanwhile, President Trump wants to directly dictate prices to drug manufacturers and thus import the worst practices from Europe. If Maga were truly so averse to Europe‘s political modus vivendi, as J.D Vance would have the world believe, it might be advisable to stay clear of price controls, one of the most calamitous Europe-inspired policies.
Alas, the President’s ambition to control prices doesn’t stop at drugs. If it were up to him, the government would also control the price of housing, mortgages and credit card interest rates.
The free flow of goods, services and labor is not only no longer promoted, but actively impaired. Tariffs, quotas, a hermetically sealed border and mass deportations inefficiently increase the cost of commerce and disincentize the inflow of human capital.
Rather than divesting from private enterprise, the Trump administration follows a state capitalist handbook by taking controlling stakes in private business like Intel.
Chip producers are coerced into constitutionally dubious pay to play agreements in order to avoid export controls in return for 15% of their profits, as if the absence of export controls should be rewarded. This is indicative of the mindset of a megalomaniac who assumes that the he should have total control over economic interactions by default and that he should, therefore, be lobbied, courted and paid off to let specific companies enjoy the perks of a free and open market.
CEOs are expected to pay homage to the President and those who won‘t are publicly admonished and immediately disfavored by the administration such as Exxon‘s CEO who dared to point out the dilapidated state of the Venezuelan oil industry.
While the administration laudably deregulates certain sectors of the economy, ideologically opposed industries, such as the renewable energy sector, face new regulatory hurdles.
Authoritarianism and neoliberalism are rarely compatible. It is yet another reason for conservatives to leave the populist era behind and to return to neoliberal economics and rescue the US economy from the whims of an authoritarian populist and the socialist designs of the political left.
22-25, M
