Reference Message Network reported on April 22 that the website of the American "New York Times" published an article titled "Trump's America: No Rules, Just Connections" on April 20. The author is Francisco Rodriguez, a professor of international relations at the University of Denver. The content is compiled as follows: This month, the United States staged a dramatic policy "U-turn," which is rare in American economic history. In just a few days, President Trump first announced a significant increase in tariffs, causing panic in the global market, and then partially made concessions. During this process, the Trump administration did not conduct substantive consultations with Congress, and there was no evidence to show that they followed a reasonable procedure when determining tariff rates. Economists who often hold different opinions are almost unanimously critical of Trump's tariff plan, and their words are not without sarcasm. Political analysts also find it difficult to provide a coherent logic to explain the strategic rationality of threatening to launch a trade war against most countries in the world. In a sense, there is indeed a reason for this, because the real problem may not lie in trade. From another perspective, this is actually about power. In principle, whether or not to impose tariffs and which countries to impose them on cannot be decided unilaterally by the president. The U.S. Constitution's trade clause clearly grants this power to Congress. However, Trump used the power granted to him by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the president to manage trade during a state of economic emergency. His actions are equivalent to declaring that the administrative department can bypass the power granted to Congress by the Constitution. Financial markets seem to have understood this. Unlike previous global crises, this event did not lead investors to buy dollars for safe haven. On the contrary: the news of the tariff caused the dollar to plummet significantly, and it continued to fall even after the government changed its policy direction. This indicates that investors are worried about more than just the damage caused by protectionist policies to the economy. Let us assume that some people inside the White House are firm supporters of tariffs. They believe that tariffs can bring manufacturing jobs back, increase national treasury revenue, restore trade fairness, and stimulate investment. But those trying to find logic behind Trump's tariff decisions are missing the point: for a government that seeks to monopolize power, only through seemingly arbitrary decisions can it convey such a message to the outside world - it can do whatever it wants. In addition to the trade sector, Trump also exercised other administrative powers through strained legal interpretations. He cited the Foreign Enemies Act of 1798 to deport hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador without due process, under the pretext that the United States was being invaded by Venezuelan criminal gangs. From the perspective of consolidating power through authoritarianism, these actions by the government make perfect sense. Elon Musk's Department of Efficiency has far from achieved the goal of significantly reducing government spending; in fact, the fiscal deficit may ultimately increase, but it sends a clear message to American civil servants: their work is entirely subject to the orders of the administrative head. In the three months since the president took office, almost every major decision he has made has had one thing in common: sacrificing the legislative and judicial branches and the professional civil service corps to maintain administrative power. The destructive effect of this decision-making model on economic incentive mechanisms cannot be overstated. Today's corporate leaders may not know how to respond to the uncertainty brought about by the obvious unpredictability of presidential decisions. Over time, they will be replaced by those who are well-versed in the ways of power. Trump himself claimed that he would now decide tariff exemptions "by intuition," which fully illustrates this trend. The message he conveys to the private sector is clear: there are no rules, only connections. Half a century ago, American economist Anne Krueger precisely summarized this phenomenon as the political economy of rent-seeking society - in such societies, the efforts of entrepreneurs are not aimed at learning how to meet consumer needs to improve productivity, but rather at pleasing politicians who decide the winners and losers of economic competition. Getting stuck in the quagmire of rent-seeking will make a country poorer, but it can also allow politicians to gain political benefits through economic operations in ways that seem inconceivable in modern democratic societies. That is why the arbitrary and seemingly arbitrary use of power to determine economic fate has almost become the core issue of each democratic setback. Raising tariffs worldwide will not make the United States stronger; instead, it will only enhance the power of the current ruling group while weakening American democracy. This is the true cost of reckless exercise of economic power. (Compiled/Translated by Wang Dongdong) Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7496103550012719679/ Disclaimer: This article solely represents the views of the author. Welcome to express your attitude in the [upvote/downvote] buttons below.