The question that comprises the title of this WP piece/post/essay, or whatever it will be (always spontaneous), is a question about Trump as an attack of the free market. And, almost needless to say, the question is not well-attended to, either in words composed by our esteemed financial journalists, nor in the hands of the press. Nor is the question addressed by the university “economics” (as a subject).
When you put a wall up or want to put a wall up — this proposal, which is a blocking project as to commerce or traffic, one that involves Mexico, since that is where the border is — you are LIMITING yourself. Sometimes that’s OK; there is nothing the matter with it. Nobody is emotionally or Constitutionally obligated to embrace the world. I hear tell that Mr. Trump hates to see anybody else from profiting off “his” brand. He goes ballistic if any one tries to find a way into profits that Trump believes are meant for himself. Trump became, at long last (it took awhile) a multi-billion dollar guy, retaining this kind of attitude: a fixture of his personality. So, there are many persons — many — within the overall market framework who jealously guard their territory. They want a wall. That is their right and it exists as an aspect of the overall free market system.
This is not the question here of a small person’s “own” opinion about trade. We are asking the free-market (actually, I tried to type “about” the free market but the wrong sounds right sometimes, I have to say), but that means the many. What we are not asking about are the individuals who are within a market. In other words, if we ask about the “market” we are asking about persons. A market is not just ONE person.
Strange that this should be controversial. We use the word market all the time, but have no idea what we are talking about. This is the way it is, so we have to deal with this world. So. It would be a major accomplishment to instigate a broader understanding of the “free market” from within the free market. Maybe there could be a more free ranging conversation. How do you all feel about such a project? I certainly hope that such an investigation wouldn’t “infringe” on anybody’s territory. I hope no one would be upset….
(As to the title question. “Is Tr an Attack on the FM”? It seems possible he holds these views. But, if that is the case, it will not contribute to greater profits, in the U. S. And why the hell should it? Everything domestic just gets smaller this way. Perhaps by some miracle the U. S. should come out of this a “greater” country? It will also be a smaller one. Such a reduction has, of course, has long been advocated – but by opponents of “US imperialism,” the left.)