
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” –FA Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, pg 76
Hayek wrote these words back in 1988, but they could apply just as easily today.
The past two months have demonstrated in no uncertain terms just how little some men know about what they imagine they can design. The so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs were supposed to usher in an era of unparalleled prosperity for the US. Not only were we going to be freed from the evil machinations of foreign governments, but prices would fall, stocks would rise, the dollar would strengthen, interest rates would fall, the debt would fall, foreigners would come begging to deal with Trump, and America would stand on top of the world. This plan was endorsed by Very Smart People™ with advanced degrees from Harvard (Navarro, Miran) and Yale (Cass). Invoking an odd combination of MMT and bizarrely-understood strategic trade models, everything was going to be perfect. Why, the model even had fancy Greek letters in it, so you know it was legit!
But since the announcement, absolutely nothing has worked out as the central planners intended.
The stock market lost trillions of dollars worth of wealth, and the S&P 500 had its worst performance in a president’s first 100 days since the 70s. The US dollar plummeted in value. Interest rates, especially treasury yields, have risen, as investors have looked for alternatives to America. Debt is likely to rise due to more interest payments at higher rates and the administration’s plan to bail out industries negatively affected by the tariffs. Foreign governments are giving lip service to Trump while coming up with alternative deals (mainly involving China). What “deals” have been announced involve higher tariffs on Americans.
America, rather than standing atop the world, has become a dangerous prospect in both politics and economics thanks to Trump’s capricious nature and his apparent tendency to be influenced by the last voice that talked to him.
Despite the fancy mathematics, the ivy league degrees, and the assurances of the elite, “Liberation Day” has failed in a spectacular fashion. In fact, it’s failed so spectacularly that the Trump Administration is already setting up scapegoats. After all, the one thing the central planners can never, ever do is admit fault or that they were wrong. Just like the failure of Fauci et al’s central plans to stop COVID didn’t fail because the plan itself was flawed (why, it too was endorsed by Very Smart People™ and had fancy Greek letters!) but because of the unvaccinated, Trump is in desperate search of scapegoats.
Why has this plan failed? The math was perfect. They failed to account for one thing: economics is a social science. Ultimately, we are not dealing with mindless automatons. There are not, to borrow Adam Smith’s famous metaphor, pieces on the chessboard to be directed by the visible hand of the player. The economy is not top-down, with incentives acting as computer inputs, directing behavior. Economics is the study of human action and human behavior. We are dealing with people. People with hopes, dreams, desires. People who want to live their best lives. And those hopes, dreams, desires are in direct conflict with the Central Plan. They are impossible to coordinate with the Central Plan. In short, these men misunderstood the very nature of the system they imagined they can design.
Just like every planner before him, the Trump Administration will find it has to resort to more and more restrictions, regulations, threats, tariffs, taxes, etc., to get what it wants. Scott Sumner said it best: this is very much Trump’s “Great Leap Forward” moment ). Let us just hope it ends before the consequences get disastrous.
READER COMMENTS
David Henderson
Jun 12 2025 at 10:17am
You write:
I don’t think the math was perfect. They failed to account for the fact that economics is a social science, but they also failed to account for much more.
Jon Murphy
Jun 12 2025 at 8:15pm
Sorry, what I meant to say is that the math was perfect in the context of the model. All the bad things that have happened are not because someone put a number in wrong is whatever Excel sheet they used to calculate this nonsense.
Scott Sumner
Jun 13 2025 at 1:48am
I think it depends what you mean by “the math”. Based on what I read, they put the wrong elasticity into the formula. Off by a factor of nearly 4.
Once that was done, the calculations were probably correct, but working with the wrong formula.
Jon Murphy
Jun 13 2025 at 7:50am
Yeah that’s what I mean.
Mactoul
Jun 13 2025 at 1:55am
I wonder if similar criticisms are going to be applied to EU’s CBAM policy or is that going to get Climate change exemption from criticism.
Jon Murphy
Jun 13 2025 at 7:52am
You’re more than welcome to write such a criticism. I’m not European and I’m not overly concerned with European issues, so I probably won’t write it.
Mactoul
Jun 13 2025 at 1:57am
More generally, given Hayek’s criticism, what is the point of economics practically speaking?
What do working economists get to do if governments world over accept Hayek?
john hare
Jun 13 2025 at 3:39am
What would legions of accountants do if the tax code was simplified?
What would swarms of prison guards do if rehabilitation and prevention were to massively reduce their “clientele”?
What would the masses of teachers and administrators do if education became automated effectively?
What would the herds of construction workers do when automatic equipment takes over?
You can “what ifs” of the whole population in this manner. Over half the population used to be agricultural compared to 2-3% now. Doesn’t mean that half the population is now unemployed due to farm automation.
Jon Murphy
Jun 13 2025 at 3:45am
I don’t understand the question. Our lives wouldn’t change. We’d continue to study exchange and the relationships that develop. We’d continue to study the market process.
Your question is like asking “what would physicists do is governments around the world accept Einstein.”
Mactoul
Jun 13 2025 at 8:17pm
The policy making departments of the governments must be packed with economists. And even the academic economists are employed because the students flock to economics courses because of jobs in government.
Physicist jobs would have been quite curtailed if governments had mutually agreed to outlaw nuclear bombs.
Jon Murphy
Jun 13 2025 at 8:25pm
Not really, no. Mostly lawyers. I mean, there are economists employed, but not that many compared to other professions.
Absolutely not. The vast majority of our students are employed by businesses.
Obviously not.
Monte
Jun 14 2025 at 11:52am
Even more pernicious, what do female models get to do if Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Issue accepts A.I.?
Jose Pablo
Jun 13 2025 at 2:53pm
The so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs were supposed to usher in an era of unparalleled prosperity for the US
https://www.wsj.com/articles/auto-supplier-marelli-files-for-bankruptcy-to-hand-lenders-control-ed401dda?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1
Two things are infinite … and I’m not sure about the universe.
Jose Pablo
Jun 13 2025 at 7:57pm
https://www.wsj.com/business/retail/latino-shoppers-retail-sales-coke-7005b8ac?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1
At least some of this administration’s other policies are helping to foster the “unparalleled prosperity”
José Pablo
Jun 16 2025 at 10:32am
More on “unparalleled prosperity”
https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/jobs-unemployment-rise-young-people-ce4704d8?st=iTLCyF&reflink=article_gmail_share
José Pablo
Jun 17 2025 at 11:48pm
Retail sales in America fell by 0.9% during May, marking the second month of declines and the steepest drop since the start of the year—in April they fell by 0.1%. In March many consumers rushed to make purchases ahead of Mr Trump’s tariff announcements. May’s figures reflect the aftermath: car and auto-part sales decreased by 3.5%.
Comments are closed.