Trump's 'They Can Have 5' Moment is an Attack on Capitalism
Trump’s tariffs aren’t just bad economics—they’re a rejection of abundance, prosperity, and capitalism itself.
While recently aboard Air Force One, President Donald Trump told reporters that "a young lady—a 10-year-old girl, 9-year-old girl, 15-year-old girl—doesn't need 37 dolls. She could be very happy with two or three or four or five." He doubled down in an interview with NBC's Kristen Welker, saying that Americans "don't need to have 250 pencils. They can have five."
Trump is referring to the economic hardship that is inevitable due to his tariffs. Toys are a particular focus, many of which come from China and are subject to the highest tariffs. Trump is asking Americans to make sacrifices, and not with the eloquence of John F. Kennedy—the sacrifices we make are simply to satisfy his pride.
Americans produce a lot and consume a lot. We have among the highest average incomes and we buy a lot of stuff. We derive pleasure from acquiring and using material things, whether they're toys, clothes, video games, or cars. If 37 dolls make you happy, and you have the means, then go out and buy 37 dolls. It is not a question of whether we need them or not.
Trump's comments are an explicit rejection of materialism, abundance, and capitalism itself. I much prefer the Trump who was obsessively tweeting about stocks going up in his first term. Not only is Trump not tweeting about stocks, but he seems entirely indifferent to the prospect of a recession.
In other comments, Trump has said that prosperity can be achieved through tariffs—which is obviously untrue—so it seems likely that he's willing to trade off some short-term economic pain for potential long-term gain. But as any student of economics will tell you, the tariffs are all pain, and even if the president doesn't expect a recession, we are probably going to get one.
I don't buy dolls, but I do buy clothes. I am a clotheshorse. I own 250 T-shirts, 40 pairs of jeans, 70 shirts, 30 jackets, 20 suits, and 50 pairs of shoes. I like that I can walk into my closet and mix and match outfits every day, with nearly an infinite number of permutations. It gives me pleasure. Most of the shirts are made in India; the shoes are made in Italy (Italians have a better reputation for making shoes than Americans). They will be more expensive after the tariffs, and I will have to economize unless the manufacturer completely relocates the supply chain to the U.S. at great cost.
Do I need all these clothes? Of course not—but that is not the point. I am using the money that I earn—the product of my best effort—to buy the best efforts of a manufacturer on the other side of the world. I do not buy inferior products to keep less-competent Americans employed doing busywork.
The doll comments are somewhat reminiscent of former President Jimmy Carter putting on a sweater and going on TV in 1977 to ask Americans to turn the heat down in the face of natural gas shortages. That, followed by his 1977 "malaise speech," negatively impacted national morale and likely cost him his presidency.
There doesn't seem to be as much visceral outrage at Trump's assertion that American girls can make do with less. Yet, if there is a greater good here, Trump has been unable to articulate it. If the tariffs are in place simply because Trump romanticizes the late 1800s and thinks we can finance government spending with tariff revenue, then we are doomed.
This rhetoric from Trump has a great deal in common with Bernie Sanders' anti-capitalist worldview. Between the tariffs, the increasingly progressive income taxes, the incompetent attempt to cut government spending, and the explicit anti-materialism, Trump is off to a bad start with capitalists.
In the past, those with a desire for free-ish markets would generally vote Republican. At least in the past, the Republicans were pro-growth. What does it mean when both major political parties are anti-growth and anti-materialism? What does it mean when the political apparatus of a country is wholly aligned for it to fail? I would not get too comfortable in those stock index funds.
