Capitalism confronts the Trumpic rift

For capital, these are the best times and these are the worst times. Rarely has been detected by so many people and systematically, and it is rarely threatened by so little with a total destruction. A refunding approach, the thinking of the Trump administration, will force capital to return to the US and lead to unprecedented adjustments (Reuters) Donald Trump will leave a legacy in many domains, but probably will be its most lasting impact on recycling modern capitalism and shaking the foundations of international economic architecture. Being in the middle of a historic moment makes it difficult, if not impossible, to assess it accurately. But make no mistake. Regardless of the scope and durability of its tariff announcements, the profound importance of this moment in shaping how the world does business and makes money cannot be emphasized enough. Lord of complexities, here is what Trump does: To attract capital, he punishes capital. Trump’s fundamental faith is now well known. He considers globalization as a one-way street where US capital went from America, foreign capital has not come to America, and the world of China to Europe to India-used the US market to make a profit at the expense of US producers and workers. To reverse it and get both US and foreign capital at home, he wants to use what he thinks his strongest leverage is – the size and purchasing power of the US market. And he believes that rates are the most effective tool to do so, as higher import taxes are much more difficult to access the big market and encourage companies in the US themselves. This retreating approach, the thinking of the administration, will force capital to return to the US and lead to unprecedented renovation. This will force other countries to open their markets for US products. This will ensure that US businesses are treated well in foreign markets. In the short term. Trump seems to be aware that the retreating approach to inflation will lead, causing uncertainties in the market and causing unpredictability. But he clearly calculates that he can currently bear the political costs for it in the larger search for bringing back capital. There are legal questions about this approach. Since the country that received the highest foreign foreign investment flow last year was – surprised, surprised – the US itself, is such a penalty approach necessary? Are the other incentives that Trump has already rolled out enough to attract capital? Does not betray his worldview a fundamental misunderstanding of how relatively open trade and complicated supply chains in reality work and how everyone can benefit from it? Wouldn’t US manufacturers who depend on imports dependent in America also suffer? Is it wise to sacrifice the tangible interests of American consumers with the aim of potentially protecting American workers? In any case, do the fundamentals of the creation of employment and economy change with the advent of artificial intelligence? Is such a direct assault on the proximity and friend needed and useful if the strategic purpose is to reduce the dependence on China? Is the administration of economic pain through inflation and thus reduces the space for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates and even risk a domestic recession, really healthy? What are the ripple effects and the second and third-order effects of the fact that America occurs as a revisionist, withdrawal and predator economic power? Events (and data) will answer all these questions over time. But what is clear is that although this moment offers opportunities for capital – every moment does – businesses their most vulnerable position. If there is such an unpredictability, if you do not know if you can import goods, you must manufacture products, if you do not know if you can export goods and earn the same margin if your market value is subject to the whims of presidential states that change every day, it is very disturbing. But what is also true at the moment, and analytically most important, is that this punishment for capital and the states that are the primary investment ways for exporting capital to the US is to draw capital itself. This moment of great vulnerability to capital is actually talking about how critical capital has become to strengthen the legitimacy of domestic political systems. This is not new in itself, but the urgency of the need for capital is striking. For all the talk of Wall Street as evil in the Maga gangs, or national champions as a problem in Indian discourse, every state does everything in its power to get investments. It takes the form of industrial policies, of massive subsidies, of regulatory cleanups, of policies aimed at specific businesses. The Trumpian turn represents a stick with the root. And this is because for all political leaders, the creation of employment in a time of rising costs and ambitions has become the central political challenge. They all want capital, and they want capital that matches their political goals. But this challenge is exacerbated by China’s overwhelming manufacturing dominance. Beijing is home to capital management exports. Capital from the Chinese relies in the world. China is even in a position to control capital that leaves Chinese banks and redirects it to other geographical areas such as Vietnam or Mexico or stopping the tide to other geographical areas such as India. Late tonight, Trump will show this approach to punishing capital to attract capital. America will be injured. Likewise, the rest of the world will. And India will also be injured. It is a pity that although Indian Diplomacy has done a credible task to ensure that the world environment is conducive to compliance with Indian economic aspirations, New Delhi economic managers could have fared better. The task of drawing capital, the task of becoming a manufacturing power, the task of securing India’s largest export market, which is America, the task of reducing the dependence on India’s largest source of import, which is also an adversary, has suddenly become much more difficult. In this moment of the greatest cold that modern capitalism has seen, at least since the end of the Cold War, India should focus relentlessly and pragmatically on ensuring its own economic interests. While the world is closing, the Indian way may be possible to open. The views are personal