The Surprising Convergence of Donald Trump's Economic Advice to the American People and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Advice to His Own People

Jun 12

Among the issues that Donald Trump successfully campaigned on in 2024, the most influential one, along with putting a stop to rampant illegal immigration, was undoubtedly improving the American people’s standard of living, following years of high inflation under the Biden administration. That inflation had resulted largely from the huge budget deficits incurred as a result of Biden policies, which inflated the currency and thereby lowered its value. (The most noteworthy instance of such overspending was the thoroughly misnamed “Inflation Reduction Act.”)

Following Trump’s victory (along with Republicans achieving majorities in both houses of Congress), Americans had good reason to hope for an improvement in their economic situation. But while the 2025 budget has yet to be finalized, and Trump assigned Elon Musk to save trillions in the Federal budget by weeding out waste (a promise that is far from fulfillment), the President has surprisingly focused his economic energy on raising tariffs across the board (having previously remarked that “tariff” was his favorite word), without evident concern for their effect on consumers and most businesses. Unsurprisingly, this policy – which most economists regard as unwise – has caused large gyrations in the stock and bond markets, with businesses fearing to invest in new enterprises lest their value decline as a result. Indeed, many informed observers fear that Trump’s economic nationalism will spur a worldwide decline in international trade, just as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930 did, and in consequence, a global depression. Already, a first-quarter economic contraction of 0.3 percent – the largest since the second quarter of 2022 - seemed to confirm voters’ fears about the President’s policies. Unless Trump quickly alters his trade posture, mainstream economists are warning of the imminent prospect of stagflation — a combination of high inflation, stagnant or falling output, and rising unemployment, such as the U.S. last underwent during the Carter administration.

Trump has thus far sought to reassure Americans that the long-term effects of his tariff policies will benefit them. (He has also begun trying to negotiate deals with individual countries such as Britain that will reduce his initial tariffs.) But most surprising were his recent remarks explaining why, even if his policies heighten the price of consumer goods, Americans would have no reason for worry, since all that would entail (as he told reporters on April 30) is that "maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls," and “maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally." He repeated the point in an NBC interview a few days later, now saying that children might have three dolls instead of thirty, and additionally could have five pencils rather than 250, since they have no need for the latter sum.

Of course the latter example was poorly chosen, since no sane child is known to have requested anything like 250 pencils. But while no girl actually needs more than three dolls, as columnist Jeff Jacoby recently observed, the notion that government should mock parents and relatives who want to bestow additional dolls or other playthings on their young flies in the face of Americans’ traditional view of their country. As Jacoby puts it, “Americanism” has commonly been understood to comprise not only “some combination of individualism, equality, freedom, democracy, and patriotism, along with values like ethnic and religious pluralism, a strong work ethic, and a belief in progress,” but also “material abundance and consumer choice.” How dare the President or any other government official mock the latter desires – least of all someone who lives as lavishly as Donald Trump and his family? (Trump is reported by ABC to be about to be gifted a lavish replacement for Air Force One – a superluxury Boeing 747 - by the government of Qatar. Reportedly, the President plans to continue using the plane as his mode of transport even after his term in office ends, by affiliating it with his foundation library. Needless to say, the Qataris must be expecting some return on their investment.)

Coming to Trump’s defense, economic nationalist Vice President J.D. Vance argued that the United States must become “self-reliant” in producing its own medicine and weapons rather than getting them from “a foreign adversary,” maintaining that the U.S. has not produced its own goods throughout his lifetime. Despite criticism of the President’s remark about dolls, acknowledging that the price of toys could go up in the coming months due to upcoming tariffs, Vance contended that parents should ask themselves if they want to have confidence that drugs and medicine needed to cure their children will be available “as an American parent.” In other words, if your kids are ill, you should be more concerned with whether the medications you treat them with were made in America, rather than whether they are the best medications available, at the lowest possible price. Who thinks this way? (Domestic armament production is a somewhat different issue, though it is not apparent that importing weapons from allies like Britain, France, or Australia when needed in any way endangers our security. And the claim that the U.S. has not – at all? – produced any of its own goods in recent decades is of course a gross exaggeration.)

What has not yet been pointed out to my knowledge is how Trump’s advice to Americans mirrors that offered by Chinese President Xi Jinping to his people in 2023, at a time when young people were struggling to find jobs in the wake of the COVID pandemic. Instead of pledging to improve conditions for Chinese youth, Xi called on them to “actively seek hardship,” portraying the acceptance of hardship as an essential part of his country’s tradition. (In May, 2023, official data showed that the youth unemployment rate among 16- to 24-year-olds in China reached a record high of 20.8%. And millions of college graduates were reported to face difficulties obtaining employment of a sort that would make use of their training.) In consequence of China’s bleak economic situation, social mobility is reported to have become increasingly difficult, leading some youth to embrace an “unambitious” lifestyle, while those who can are fleeing abroad, lacking confidence in their economic prospects at home.

Of course, like Trump but probably more so, Xi himself and other high-level party apparatchiks live at a considerably higher standard of living than those to whom their recommendation of enduring hardship is directed. And while the Chinese people have exhibited unhappiness with some of their government’s policy reforms aimed at reducing its budget deficit, such as raising the age at which people are eligible to receive retirement pensions, Xi, whose rule is based above all on force combined with a strictly governed bureaucratic apparatus, has far less reason to fear such resistance. Nonetheless, Trump’s remarks about dolls and pencils exhibit a troubling disregard for the concerns of ordinary Americans, including the cost of living. Should anyone want to accumulate thirty dolls or 250 pencils: what business is that of the government? And why shouldn’t it pursue policies that will keep prices down?

While Trump’s rhetoric has widely been viewed as “populistic,” including unstatesmanlike insults of politicians he disagrees with, and a policy of economic nationalism that will supposedly boost Americans’ pride in their country by bringing back manufacturing jobs to this country (regardless of the increased prices that will result not only in consumer goods, but in the costs of industrial production), it is incumbent on him, as it is on any American public official, to respect rather than dismiss people’s desires to advance themselves through labor and saving. This includes allowing them to purchase goods at the lowest prices – regardless of whether prices matter to people in the highest governmental ranks – and avoid seeing their earnings and savings eaten up by inflation. (Fortunately, the President has at least urged Congress to enact the continuance of his 2017 tax reductions, which spurred investment and prosperity – even though some of his latest proposed populist fillips, such as exempting Social Security payments and tips from taxation, will heighten inflation without promoting work and investment.) Thanks to our democratic system, failure to heed these concerns is unlikely to advance the Republican Party’s political fortunes, or the reputation of the second Trump Presidency in the eyes of future generations.