As someone who studies international political economy and financial-market actors, six possibilities occur to me. The first explanation is motivated reasoning. Perhaps companies and financial markets simply do not want to believe that Trump is serious about following through on his most extreme proposals. Those pursuing the TACO (“Trump always chickens out”) trade have largely been vindicated in their bet that Trump’s most damaging tariffs would be short-lived or shot through with carve-outs. Why jump ship if it is all bluster?

A second possibility concerns market participants’ ideology. Holders of capital may genuinely believe that most government spending on things like research and public health is wasteful, that regulation is uniformly burdensome, and that higher education is a cesspool of socialist indoctrination. If so, they would be fine with Trump taking an ax to them all.

This ideology may be buttressed by firms’ short time horizons, and that points to a third explanation. While dramatic cuts to federal research funding will obviously harm America’s long-term economic competitiveness, corporate C-suites are not exactly filled with long-term thinkers. Shareholder capitalism — the dominant paradigm — leads businesses to discount such future costs. If stock prices are well-served by quiescence or overt obsequiousness to Trump, the long-term costs become a can that can be kicked down the road.

A fourth possibility is that our assumptions about corporate preferences for certainty, economic stability and policy credibility are simply wrong. Not only can some market players capitalize on trading volatility, but, beyond that, the rise of a plutocratic, personalist regime in the U.S. may bolster Big Business’s confidence in its ability to secure tax cuts and favorable regulation and enforcement. In this context, the pervasive uncertainty and chaos incited by Trump becomes a small price to pay for access to the king.

A related explanation concerns companies’ incentives to unite against the king. Collective mobilization is hard even when there are strong motives for it. If individual firms believe they can extract more valuable favors or concessions from the regime unilaterally, they will view collective lobbying as being not worth it — or even as running counter to their own narrow interests. Trump has routinely singled out individual companies and executives for condemnation and has already wielded the full force of the executive branch against law firms, universities, news organizations and private companies. While some may be silent in the hope of securing concessions, others may be driven by fear of reprisal.

A final reason relates to how markets process information. As my own research shows, market-risk and market-valuation models tend to deal poorly with external shocks, relegating them to the unknowable tails of the distribution when considering future scenarios. As Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman notes, markets “act as if everything is normal until it’s blindingly obvious that it isn’t.”

Moreover, as John Maynard Keynes and, more recently, Nathan Tankus have argued, markets don’t synthesize information as much as the conventional wisdom would suggest. Traders respond less to events than to how they expect others to respond to those events, and this dynamic may be introducing dramatic disjunctures into how markets perceive and price the risks of Trump’s policies.

These explanations are, of course, not mutually exclusive. And companies’ capital and ownership structure, industry, size and degree of integration in global value chains shape their willingness to push back against economically damaging policies. Most likely, some are quite confident in their ability to curry favor with the Trump administration, whereas others are much more concerned about Trump taking to Truth Social to call for a boycott against them.

But despite firms’ and markets’ willingness to gamble on short-term gains over long-term costs, no one should be under any illusion: Those long-term costs are coming.

Erin Lockwood is an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine.

This commentary — “Why Are Markets Ignoring the Obvious About America?” — is published with the permission of Project Syndicate.

More: U.S. companies could see closed markets and higher costs as globalization ends

Also read: Why mortgage rates and other borrowing costs could rise if Trump controls the Fed

Source article: Marketwatch