politico.eu
US Shifts from Bidenomics to 'National Capitalism', Abandoning State-Led Industrial Policy
The US is abandoning Bidenomics' state-led industrial policy for a new "national capitalism" model centered on radical liberalization, privatization, and market forces; this shift, using tariffs to insulate the domestic market, contrasts sharply with Europe's continued reliance on state-led economic strategies.
- How does the US's new approach to industrial policy differ from Europe's, and what are the underlying causes of this divergence?
- This shift is a response to perceived distortions caused by globalization and other countries' state-driven economic models. Tariffs are not viewed as protectionist but as tools to insulate the US during this market-oriented recalibration. The approach contrasts sharply with Europe's continued focus on state-led industrial policy and subsidies.
- What are the potential long-term impacts of the US's shift towards "national capitalism", both domestically and internationally?
- The long-term implications include increased competition, potentially leading to greater innovation and efficiency, but also risks of increased inequality and vulnerability to market fluctuations. Europe's failure to recognize this fundamental shift in US economic policy could lead to significant economic disadvantages for the EU. The focus on dismantling state intervention may also lead to less government oversight and regulation, potentially increasing economic risks.
- What is the fundamental shift in US economic policy under the Trump administration, and what are its immediate consequences for the global economy?
- The US is shifting from state-led industrial policy ("Bidenomics") to a model of "national capitalism", characterized by radical liberalization, privatization, and a rejection of government intervention. This shift is evident in plans to eliminate subsidies for green energy and electric vehicles, and to privatize entities like the US Postal Service. The aim is to create a level playing field driven by genuine market forces, not state interventions.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the narrative to portray the US shift towards 'national capitalism' as a superior and more disruptive strategy compared to Europe's approach. This is evident in the language used (e.g., 'smashing that model to bits,' 'fading era,' 'misdiagnosis'). The headline could also be framed to emphasize the uncertainty and potential risks associated with this approach.
Language Bias
The article employs loaded language to portray the US approach favorably and the EU's approach negatively. Examples include: 'egregious government-led attempt,' 'stubbornly fighting yesterday's war,' 'radical liberalization,' 'crude protectionism.' Neutral alternatives could include: 'government-led initiative,' 'persistent adherence to previous strategies,' 'market-oriented reform,' and 'protectionist measures.'
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the US and European economic policies, potentially omitting other global perspectives and their influence on the described shifts. It doesn't analyze the potential impacts of this radical shift on developing nations or other significant economic players. This omission limits a comprehensive understanding of the global economic landscape.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between 'state-led industrial policy' and 'national capitalism,' oversimplifying the complexities of economic systems. It suggests a stark choice between these two models, neglecting the possibility of hybrid approaches or more nuanced policies.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses a shift in US economic policy towards "national capitalism," characterized by radical liberalization, privatization, and reliance on market forces. This approach, while potentially disruptive, could stimulate competition, innovation, and economic growth if implemented effectively. The elimination of subsidies for certain sectors might lead to job losses in the short term but could also create opportunities in other, more competitive areas. The focus on breaking up monopolies and promoting competition aims to improve efficiency and create a more dynamic job market.