Skip Navigation
Fediverse vs Disinformation @lemmy.dbzer0.com
PhilipTheBucket @ponder.cat

Here’s another super weird pro-Trump article in The Guardian. TL;DR Trump’s tariffs might work, if we start defaulting on treasury bills that would be good, the grand upheaval of 1982 was great stuff.

www.theguardian.com

Here’s one key thing you should know about Trump’s shock to the world economy: it could work | James Meadway
54 comments

  • There's no disinformation here. The article is a pretty decent (though flawed) explainer of what is generally agreed to be the most likely rationale behind the tariffs.

    The author is not adopting a pro-Trump position in doing so, anymore than a doctor explaining what's happening in your body is "pro-cancer." It's important to understand the actions of terrible people so we can better counter them.

    OP's objections - and their mistaken belief that the article is adopting a pro-Trump stance - seem to centre on the fact that the author ascribes some kind of plan to the actions of the Trump administration, but this is not the same thing as suggesting that Trump himself is making some kind of masterful play. There's two flaws in OP's assumptions; first, that ascribing rationale to the actions of the administration is the same thing as ascribing rationale to the actions of Trump. Second, that describing how a plan can be broadly coherent and have some potential to succeed (on its own specific terms) is the same thing as saying that a plan is good or well thought out.

    The article's chief failing is in not doing enough to u highlight both the obvious flaws in how this plan is being executed, and the obvious downsides it carries even if it succeeds.

    I would recommend that OP, in particular, read this article from TPM; https://archive.is/Z164V

    In addition to addressing the flaws I mentioned above with the Guardian article, it also does a very good job of addressing the dichotomy between Trump's obvious idiocy and the fact that his insane actions often do have the elements of some kind of strategy to them.

    We all know there is a persistent desire, need, insistence on figuring out the plans behind Donald Trump’s seeming chaos. But that whole enterprise is flawed. There is no more plan here than a giant worm consuming everything in its path has. It eats and it moves forward. That’s all there is.... ... Now, given Trump’s great political power, he attracts to him people either who have ideas that seem similar to these impulses or for whom these impulses fit well into their theories or strategies... People like Bessent and Miran sidle up to Trump. And in the process of sidling up to him and gaining influence with him, his goals and actions do take on more shape and coherence, on the surface. So there is sort of a plan. Miran and Bessent have one. It has some impact on Trump. But really it’s just the same guy with the same impulses, with a desire for domination and who’s super hung up about trade deficits.

    It's also worth checking out the video cited in the article, which breaks down the actual theory about Miran and Bessent's plan (which, to be clear they have openly described in essays and interviews; this isn't some 9/11 truther nonsense, it's just relaying their actual words); https://youtu.be/1ts5wJ6OfzA

    In short, yes, it's possible for Trump to be an impulsive, idiot child who is still acting out grand schemes that, broadly, could have some chance at succeeding, at least in the short term, because that idiot child is surrounded by people who see him as a means to set their own long thought out schemes into motion. He is vessel for other people's projects, albeit a deeply unreliable one because his own stupidity, impulsiveness and mental decline make it very difficult for him to actually understand the plan or stick to the script.

    • Yeah, see that all makes perfect sense. I’m all for analyzing how things got to be this way and how the whole thing behaves and where this tariff thing even came from.

      What I was taking issue with is saying that it “might work” if we just stay the course, just like all Reagan’s policies worked and fueled an economic boom. That, I strongly disagree with for multiple reasons, to the point that I think it is journalistic malpractice.

      The Guardian writes pretty much 99% very informative and sensible articles and then every so often one comes that is totally insane, and every one of the insane ones that I’ve seen has either been pro-Trump or pro-Russia. I have no idea what’s going on there but it seemed worth talking about to me.

      • Reagan's policies did fuel an economic boom (when measured by traditional economic indicators - that's its own can of worms). They also resulted in the wholesale destruction of worker compensation, worker's rights, consumer protections, and created a ticking time bomb that lead to almost every bad thing we're seeing today.

        But you can't just deny a fact because it comes bundled with a bunch of negatives. Reagan's policies - measured solely by the metric of creating huge economic growth for the wealthiest in America - were extraordinarily successful.

        This is important to understand because that success is exactly why those policies have proven so enduring. If they weren't successful, their effects - including all the negative effects - wouldn't have stuck around.

        Nothing in this article is cheerleading for Trump. This "if we stay the course" angle is entirely in your head. The author's tone is nothing but scornful towards the White House and Trump. But the worst thing we can do is assume that Trump's plans (or at least, the plans of the people doing their best to steer him in a particular direction) have no chance of succeeding. Presuming victory is a great way to ensure defeat.

        It is important to understand that there really is a chance that Trump might succeed in creating a new world economic order. I don't think he will, because I think Trump's personal goals are not as well aligned with those of his advisors as the author of this article assumes. But just because I disagree on the odds, doesn't mean I have to disagree on the possible outcomes, and acknowledging those possible outcomes is really, really important.

        As the author concludes:

        There is no guarantee this extraordinary gamble will work, not even for those in the clique around Trump. But it would be a mistake to assume it cannot work – and however the pieces now land, they will not return to their old places.

        (emphasis mine)

        Know your enemy. If you don't you are doomed to failure.

        By treating anything that tries to understand that strategies of this administration as propaganda for the administration all you're doing is damaging our ability to respond effectively to their strategies. You're trading reality for comforting lies.

54 comments