Trump 2.0: The Radical Push for Economic Self-Sufficiency in an Imperialist Economy
Or Just Another Day of Making Love-y Love to Neoliberalism. Time Will Tell.
“Our economy has been on a sugar high for a long time ... what we're seeing here from this administration and what you're gonna see from this Congress is re-disciplining to ensure that our economy is based on private investment and free-market growth.”
— Tim Sheehy (R), Montana.
Ah—the sheer pleasure of privileged white hulk men explaining economics to me. Just another Friday for this economist gal.
But in all honesty, Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek would be proud of Sheehy. Because, in essence, from Senator Sheehy’s remarks, we can gather the following about their economic plans:
But, malheureusement, this LFG mindset is not an economic policy centred on the public good (remember public good? An old friend these days). Oh well—we’re long past that point anyway, I know. Mais quand même, let’s dive deeper.
Economics: A Social Science, Not a Tool for the Rich
Let’s reset. And remember that economics is (still) a social science, one that should serve public needs—not just private wealth accumulation.
I’m more of a Snoopy-style economist, you know? ✌🏾
Senator Tim Sheehy’s claim that the economy has been on a “sugar high” and now needs “re-disciplining” toward private investment and free-market growth is not just misleading—it’s dangerous. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how economic progress actually happens.
The Myth of Private-Led Growth
The notion that economic growth flourishes best when markets are left alone is historically and empirically false. The world’s most transformative innovations—from the internet to biotech—didn’t emerge solely from private risk-taking. They were propelled by bold public investment.
Take Tesla. Elon Musk is often framed as a self-made visionary, but Tesla’s success was built on government backing. The U.S. Department of Energy’s $465 million loan, along with federal and state subsidies, played a crucial role in making electric vehicles viable. Public investment in battery technology and EV infrastructure made Tesla possible—not the magic of free markets alone.
Public Investment as the Engine of Innovation
Private firms, left to their own devices, prioritize short-term profits. High-risk, long-term investments in clean energy, AI, and advanced manufacturing? Too uncertain. That’s why public institutions—DARPA, the NIH, the Department of Energy—step in.
Consider this: The very technologies Tesla depends on—lithium-ion batteries, GPS, touchscreen interfaces—originated from publicly funded research. This isn’t a coincidence. Governments take on the risks that private firms avoid, creating the conditions for innovation to flourish. If anything, we need more public investment to drive the next wave of breakthroughs.
Short-Termism in the Free Market
When policymakers talk about “re-disciplining” the economy, they usually mean shrinking the state’s role. But this hands-off approach fuels short-termism.
Unregulated markets prioritize quick returns—leading to speculation, stock buybacks, and underinvestment in workers, infrastructure, and R&D. Even Musk, despite his “free-market” rhetoric, has benefited massively from government contracts (SpaceX) and taxpayer-funded infrastructure (EV charging networks).
If we genuinely want long-term growth (which honestly should not be the focus, but whatever), we must curb financialization and ensure firms reinvest in productive capacity, innovation, and equitable prosperity.
Market-Shaping vs. Market-Fixing
The free market isn’t some natural force. It’s structured by public choices—regulations, incentives, strategic investments.
The idea that government should only intervene to “fix” market failures is obsolete. What we need is market-shaping: a proactive approach that directs investment toward societal goals like decarbonization, equitable growth, and technological breakthroughs.
The irony? The same people who decry government intervention (cough Musk cough) are often its biggest beneficiaries. Tesla didn’t rise on “free-market growth” alone—it succeeded because public investment set the stage for electric mobility and clean energy.
Austerity and Inequality: The Real Consequences of “Re-Disciplining”
“Re-disciplining” the economy, in practice, often means austerity—slashing public spending under the guise of fiscal responsibility. We’ve seen this playbook before: stagnating wages, deepening inequality, underfunded public services.
Instead of retreating, the state should act as an investor of first resort—mobilizing private capital where it’s needed most. The private sector alone won’t make the necessary investments in infrastructure, green energy, or strategic industries. History has proven that.
The economy doesn’t need a retreat from public investment. It needs a bold, mission-oriented strategy that ensures growth is inclusive, circular, and hence, sustainable, and innovation-driven in all that regard. The real question isn’t how to shrink the role of the state—it’s how to make public investment smarter, fairer, and more transformative.
Beyond Outdated Economic Dogma
It is long past time to abandon the narrow and outdated economic mindset—one that ignores the complexities of the 21st century. Here’s why:
The Myth of the Free Market
Let’s be clear: there is no such thing as a truly “free market.” Markets are always shaped by rules and policies—through tax structures, labor protections, environmental regulations, and corporate incentives. The notion that our economy must be “re-disciplined” toward free-market growth assumes that deregulation and private investment alone will deliver prosperity. Again, yet, history tells a different story: unregulated markets tend to concentrate wealth, exploit labor, and deplete natural resources rather than foster shared, long-term well-being.
A Sugar High or a Systemic Flaw?
Describing the economy as being on a “sugar high” implies that recent growth has been artificially inflated—as if the real solution is to step back and let private markets take over. But an honest look at the past few decades reveals something deeper: much of our economic activity has been sustained by externalizing costs—shifting environmental degradation and social inequality onto future generations. The core issue isn’t temporary stimulus; it’s an entrenched addiction to extractive, short-term profit-making that disregards planetary limits.
Rethinking Investment
If we want an economy that truly delivers for people and the planet, we must ask: Investment in what? Assuming that private investors will naturally direct resources toward long-term, regenerative industries ignores reality. Private capital often prioritizes short-term returns. Instead of “re-disciplining” the economy toward private investment alone, we should be asking how public and private investment together can fund the infrastructure, social programs, and ecological transitions we urgently need.
Growth for What Purpose?
A fundamental question we must confront is: Growth for whom, and to what end? If the sole objective is GDP expansion—without regard for inequality, environmental constraints, or social well-being—then we are measuring success by the wrong metrics. Economic growth that depletes resources, destabilizes communities, and accelerates climate breakdown is not progress; it’s failure. The real challenge is to design economies that thrive, rather than merely expand.
The State’s Role in a Thriving Economy
Governments have always played a central role in shaping markets and fostering long-term resilience, from healthcare and infrastructure to technological innovation. Real economic transformation—whether building renewable energy systems, ensuring affordable housing, or expanding education—requires the public sector to set ambitious, mission-driven goals that guide markets toward human and ecological well-being.
The way forward is not a return to free-market orthodoxy but an embrace of a new economic paradigm—one that acknowledges planetary boundaries, prioritizes well-being over endless growth, and redefines investment in ways that truly serve both people and the planet.
And yet…
Trump 2.0: A Radical Vision of an Autarkic Economy?
Tim Sheehy’s remarks bring into sharp focus the revolutionary shift under Trump’s second act—both domestically and internationally.
What began as Republican Party’s talking points to shield Trump from economic turbulence has evolved into a structured ideological framework.
Trump’s fixation on tariffs has long been interpreted as a reactionary stance against free trade. But what has unfolded since Trump and his brethren came to power is something far more radical—a wholesale restructuring of the U.S. economy and global financial order.
This isn’t just about protectionism. It’s a systematic rollback of public credit injection, government-driven economic expansion, and international supply chains. The result is an attempt to construct a rigidly private, autarkic economy—one that severs its reliance on global trade and forces domestic self-sufficiency, a model rarely seen outside of totalitarian or expansionist regimes.
For decades, Keynesian fiscal policy and the global financial system have functioned as the U.S. economy’s “sugar high”—artificially expanding the domestic money supply while facilitating real economic activity. But this new MAGA doctrine isn’t just about curbing government intervention. It is a deflationary, de-growth strategy cloaked in free-market rhetoric. Cutting off public spending and restricting trade won’t result in economic dynamism; it will constrict the money supply, shrink labor demand, and push wages downward, consolidating power in the hands of employers and creditors.
The historical parallels are hard to ignore. Autarky has only been attempted successfully through either heavy state intervention—seen in Nazi Germany and North Korea—or through imperial expansion, as in mercantilist colonial systems. And this is where the Canada and Greenland remarks become telling. Trump’s casual suggestions about purchasing Greenland or tapping into Canada’s resources weren’t just rhetorical absurdities. They reflect an underlying reality: a self-sufficient U.S. economy is impossible without aggressively securing external resources. Economic isolationism and expansionist ambitions are, in fact, two sides of the same coin.
The most glaring contradiction in this agenda is that free-market autarky is theoretically possible but practically implausible in today’s globalized economy. No modern economy has ever thrived under these conditions without either state intervention or imperial expansion.
Yet, conceptually, this is a radical and coherent revolutionary agenda—one that is reshaping both the U.S. and the global order. It may be unfolding in the erratic fits and starts of Trump’s impulses, but it is unfolding nonetheless.
I agree with Judah Grunstein that Trump himself likely hasn’t thought through these contradictions, nor could he articulate them. Many of his Republican Party enablers still assume this is a temporary realignment, not a full-scale economic transformation.
But whether by accident or design, what is taking shape is a radical and coherent economic doctrine—one that is systematically dismantling the structures that have defined U.S. economic supremacy for decades. It is erratic, but it is happening.