pull down to refresh

“China has been ripping us off for years, taking advantage of our open markets while they close theirs. They’re not playing fair, and it’s costing us billions.”—Donald Trump, Pennsylvania campaign rally, June 28, 2016
Donald Trump’s economic worldview—rooted in mercantilism—prioritizes exports over imports, protects select industries, and champions self-sufficiency. This perspective—evident since the 1980s—drives his policies, from tariffs to trade wars. Yet mercantilism rests on flawed assumptions: that trade is zero-sum, job destruction harms the economy, and self-sufficiency is desirable. What follows is a critique of these fallacies, highlighting the costs of Trump’s protectionist approach amid a $37 trillion national debt crisis. …
The political right, like the left, thrives on fear, casting China, immigrants, and progressives as threats to America’s way of life. Trump’s protectionist policies exploit this angst, promising simple solutions to complex problems. Yet his approach ignores economic realities: trade benefits all, job destruction fuels progress, and self-sufficiency breeds inefficiency.
Trump inherited a $37 trillion debt ($8 trillion of which he added in his first term), with $10 trillion resetting in 2025 at 4 percent interest rates, 7 percent-of-GDP deficits, and rising entitlement costs. He has no margin for error. His capricious tariffs flummox entrepreneurs, disrupt markets and burden consumers, while subsidies like the CHIPS Act waste billions.
Blaming global trade and a prospering China for America’s woes misdiagnoses the problem and diverts attention from the elephant in the room—a bloated government and unsustainable debt. By desperately chasing their past—the legacy of the “greatest generation”—Americans gamble their future on a flawed, bygone system. True prosperity lies in free markets, not mercantilist delusions.
Assuming that trade is never a zero-sum game but rather a win-win game because rational actors only give up something of lesser value to them to get something of greater value to them, Trump may be somewhat mistaken on the value of trade. You can try to protect industries, but the cost to the consumer gets to be overwhelming and the industries suffer from lack of competition to keep them sharp and profitable, so again Trump may be in error. And lastly, trying to be autarkic is a losing proposition, too. So, is what Trump doing with the trade wars for optics or does he and his advisors really believe the theories they are shoving down the people of the world’s throats? After all, he does have a degree in economics, doesn’t he?