Genuinely wondering why so many people are still giving the Trump administration this much benefit of the doubt that their moves are strategically sound? We're really still doing the whole "3D chess" thing with this guy after he has shown over and over again that he mostly just acts on impulse and the primary qualification for his advisors is loyalty over any type of intelligence or expertise?
I dunno. Somebody literally wrote a guidebook for him to follow, but I haven't even glanced over it.
The stuff I've seen people quote from the book have all been stupid, but the kind of stupidity seems to be a "do X, so you'll get Y" where "Y" is really bad and the author thinks it's good. So I guess I do expect some kind of coherence from him.
That said, I don't remember anybody claiming Project 25 talks about tariffs.
I don't think that Trump himself is competent, but I'm not be so sure about the people around him. The effort it took to put him above the law was at least a decade in the making, so clearly someone knows what they're doing.
I don't think it's a coincidence, for instance, that Steve Banon's strategy of "flooding the zone" looks exactly as the type of chaos currently coming from the White House.
> Genuinely wondering why so many people are still giving the Trump administration this much benefit of the doubt that their moves are strategically sound?
Since I'm one of 'those people' who's been willing to grant Trump some benefit of the doubt in the past, I'll respond with my take. tl;dr Trump's handling of the tariffs have been such disaster, there's simply no possibility it was based on a strategically sound plan. So, in answer to your question, this episode has caused me to substantially foreclose my prior willingness to grant Trump some benefit of the doubt.
To be clear, while I've tried to remain open-minded re: Trump I've never felt that he's especially smart and certainly not someone I'd ever personally like or hang out with but I'm also one of those contrarians who doesn't think every politician or public figure needs to be someone I personally like or approve of in a moral sense. I've also been willing to concede that some things done by the executive branch during his first term were generally positive (whether because of or in spite of Trump isn't clear). I also think his policies and statements have been subject to an unprecedented degree of negative spin in the media - sometimes well-deserved but always hyped overwhelmingly to the negative. So I made an effort to look past the constant headlines of, essentially, "orange man bad in all possible ways." I also decided to ignore Trump's own bizarrely extreme pronouncements and focus only on what he really put into practice and, most importantly, the tangible real-world impact of those actions on the broad population and economy over time (not the extrapolated predictions in the media).
However, even to me, how he's handled this tariff thing has been a complete shit show. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to understand the various explanations, contextualizations and even 'hidden grand plan' theories proposed by some and they simply aren't plausible. It's not a 'master negotiator strategy' because he asked for concessions but never made any concrete proposals of quid pro quo. There was no attempt at serious negotiation with most major trading partners (according to the WSJ) and thus no possibility of meaningful deals.
Now suddenly (somewhat) reversing course like this a few days after going so extreme and then publicly doubling down on his long-term commitment to the 'grand strategy' is unbelievably damaging to any remaining shred of credibility his administration may have had. It nukes any possibility that he was doing a 'crazy guy on the subway' strategy of punching his adversaries in the face and making them believe he was so nuts he'd saw off his own arm just to keep beating them over the head with it - all to cleverly convince them to make meaningful concessions they'd never make any other way. Yeah, well now that he blinked in less than a week, nothing he can do will ever make them believe that. I mean, if that was the plan, it was a terrible plan and poorly executed to boot, but flipping like this is even worse.
All I can figure is that it was a 'crazy guy' plan but that he intended to keep it going for several months and then, when his opponents were bloodied enough he'd open negotiations and "win" in a master stroke. Except he completely miscalculated the degree of economic destruction he'd cause in U.S. markets and has now had to not only fold but reveal he was playing a weak bluff all along. I'm struggling to come up with any way this could have been worse for the U.S. and Trump's interests. After this, it's hard to imagine any trading partner negotiating in good faith, or perhaps, at all with Trump over tariffs in the next 90 days. The only rational strategy for them is to play along and gather info while conceding nothing meaningful and simply wait and see what Trump's ultimately going to do long term.
As far as I'm concerned, I bent over backward to grant Trump some benefit of the doubt and give him a chance to prove himself but the tariffs have been so bungled they're impossible to put it in any positive light. So far, it appears to be an epic disaster of hubris and naive miscalculation.
Is it possible that Trump is just a stupid person? That he genuinely believes the tariffs will be good, that he's being influenced by stupid people (Navarro) that believe this, and that the reaction of bond markets that didn't follow his overly simplistic model made him hit the brakes?
> the reaction of bond markets that didn't follow his overly simplistic model made him hit the brakes?
It's pretty clear that's essentially what happened. The question is how, why and what Trump's plan was.
> Is it possible that Trump is just a stupid person?
I don't think a simple linear scale between "Stupid" <---> "Smart" is a useful model for predicting likely job performance in complex, multi-function roles. Reality is far more complicated and nuanced. Whether assessing an employee, CEO, politician or spouse, just using an IQ test (or any other single point measure on one dimension) yields only an approximate directional indicator. It's certainly not the optimal model because it's entirely possible for an employee, CEO, politician or spouse who scores meaningfully lower on an intelligence test to substantially outperform a higher scorer in real-world results on the broad composite of job, leadership, governance or spousal metrics you care about.
I've read Trump's "Art of the Deal" book. He thinks he's a gifted negotiator based on the success he had in negotiating commercial real estate deals. However, commercial real estate deals are generally a pretty narrowly specific kind of deal structure. They tend to each be one-off, transactional arrangements which hinge on accurately estimating the value which can be extracted over time from a property and the future performance of the market in that location. Then forming a one-time consortium of financial backers willing to provide the capital on terms which will allow the operator to make a profit. While the amounts can be large and horizons long, these are fairly simple deals with only a few unknown dependent variables everyone is estimating the value of their position on. It's a bit like poker in some ways. It's a bid, counter-bid type of structure with only a few sellers and a few buyers at the table at any given time and each seller is offering something different enough that it's not a true commodity. There's hidden information but the domain is constrained and the unknowns are known. The bidding process reveals some information about how each player has assessed the value of their hand. They can either have a truly strong hand, be bluffing or somewhere in-between.
This is why I think Trump is ill-suited to directly managing complex, multi-dimensional geopolitical negotiations. They are profoundly different. There's far more hidden information, the domain is nearly unconstrained, there are unknown unknowns. However, not being good at negotiating these kinds of deals isn't necessarily a problem for a president. There have been a lot of presidents who've done well in geopolitical negotiations who were similarly ill-suited. They did well because they were good at selecting talent to manage those processes, setting high-level objectives and meta-managing those processes against broad political objectives and policies (Reagan would be an example). The fundamental problem with Trump is that he thinks he's good at all types of negotiation AND that it's important to his self-image to be perceived as directly involved and instrumental in 'winning'. The final nail, as it were, is that it's pretty clear Trump's default model in negotiations, politics, legal strategy, financial deals, etc tends to be "win/lose" vs at least starting out seeking a "win/win". Complicating this is that his projected self-image seeks to be publicly acknowledged as winning by beating his opponent.
This is a bad scenario because every counter-party in geopolitical trade negotiations has a far more detailed psych analysis than what I wrote that's been prepared by experts who've read everything Trump's ever said or written publicly. While Trump's actions in any given moment are certainly unpredictable, that's not generally a good thing. Especially because his internal priorities, self-image and emotional dynamics appear pretty easy to read and fairly predictable. Whether they're right or not, the counter-parties almost certainly believe they have a fairly solid take on Trump's psychological drivers. Appearing "scrutible" wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing (in fact it could be quite good), except that these psych evals are both high-confidence AND they say Trump is unpredictable, sometimes acts out emotionally, is swayed by personal loyalty over strategy, can perceive negative outcomes as personal attacks, reflexively seeks retribution for personal attacks, is strongly influenced by the immediate feedback of a couple dozen people and has few strongly-held philosophical or political premises. Whether all of these things are entirely true or not doesn't much matter. Trump has projected them so consistently over so many decades others believe they're true.
That's why when Trump said yesterday that he intends to personally be "deeply involved" in the negotiations with trading partners, I sighed. He has virtually no credibility as someone willing to stick by any framework that might be developed in private negotiations. He also has no patience for the long, painstaking process involved. No matter how good the Treasury and State negotiating teams are, their own boss has convinced the counter-parties that these teams have little real influence or ability to strike a deal. To me, that means the odds of any meaningful deals being negotiated where counter-parties are willing to 'horse trade' elements of significant value is between slim and none.
That's not it at all. I'm sure there's lots of sycophants out there, but a lot of people just don't find "he's stupid and it's random" a satisfying explanation for his actions, even if they disagree with them.
That's weird, cause they sure smeared millions of people real fast as undesirables trans/illegals/DEI/woke, but Trump gets a million chances and coup do-overs and please explain take your time sir: What is the amazing 4D strategy behind telling people to drink bleach?
Nepotism feels good all the way until it sinks your company.
A lot of this stuff is on a YouTube education level, not even a degree. I would be shocked if the US does not have a bunch of economic advisors who tell them what problems there are and what should be done. They've probably mapped out all the next steps. Most US presidents are Harvard-level smart, but the White House has been around long enough to find a way to deliver reports to the simpler ones.
There's a lot of obvious big problems - confidence in the USD, debt rising faster than GDP can catch up, military overextension, China's rise outpacing US, inequality, inaccessible education and health care, opioid crisis, etc.
Trump has a good eye for identifying this - that's why he won the election despite all his weaknesses. It's clear he knows some of this but doesn't understand it - his comments on a BRICS currency, for example. Yes, a "BRICS currency" would threaten Pax Americana but it's on literally nobody's mind.
I feel like, if anything, he's an overplanner. A smarter leader would think, these moves will have unplanned side effects. Trump makes a lot of roundabout moves like DOGE. These moves have a target, but he hasn't thought about the side effects. And when a crisis like COVID hits, it disrupts the complex plans, which is why he reacts so poorly to them.
<< I would be shocked if the US does not have a bunch of economic advisors who tell them
Oh, US does have its share of economic advisors[1] of all stripes. And, I would love to be corrected on this, when SHTF, they immediately argue for NOT the very thing they normally argue for. They can tell what should be done for sure.. just not when it comes to their money..
(edit)Therein lies the issue or at least a part of the it.
Trump is famous for ad libbing and making up whatever he wants in the moment. His first administration was not prepared to govern. I'm not sure how this is seen as over planning.
This just reads like pure fantasy to me. Have you not seen the account from numerous former Cabinet and White House officials about how lazy and incurious he is or how difficult it is to get him to read the reports put in front of him? Have you missed the way he has forced countless career officials out of the government through layoffs, firings, or pushing people to resign in protest? I don’t even know what to say to the idea that Trump is an “overplanner”, you even literally said “he hasn't thought about the side effects” a few sentences later. That’s “overplanning”?
I don't know how that is supposed to work or counts as an "overplanner". That sounds to me more like someone who has goals but doesn't actually have a plan on how to reach that goal.
