I would say, this is an intriguing question, and while it may be a stretch to claim that chaos is the explicit goal of supply-side economics or “Trumpnomics,” International Relations theory offers some insight into why economic disorder might be tolerated or even strategically leveraged.

From a realist lens, particularly offensive realism (Mearsheimer's view), great powers may seek to disrupt global interdependence to maximize relative gains. Supply chain chaos can weaken competitors who rely on global stability, thereby enhancing a state’s strategic autonomy. Similarly, a Gramscian (neo-marxist) perspective sees this disorder as serving elite capitalist interests: economic volatility often enables deregulation, weakens labor, and consolidates corporate power, not irrational outcomes for those in control. Constructivist thinkers like Susan Strange have argued that structural power lies in shaping the environment in which others operate. In this view, fostering controlled chaos can delegitimize multilateral institutions and norms, allowing powerful states to reshape the rules of the game in their favor.

However, we should also consider that much of what appears as chaos may stem from short-term populist politics rather than long-term strategic design. I believe, The destabilizing outcomes of supply-side economics might be byproducts of domestic agendas rather than carefully calculated global strategies.

So while chaos may not always be the intended end, it can become a useful means, one that reflects deeper dynamics of global power competition and shifting economic ideologies.

Subbam, excellent comment. However, I would like to keep this in mind:

1) There is Trumpconomics, there is Trumponomics, and there is chained supply and chained demand economics..... Trumponomics are the policies of

Donald Trump, Trumpconomics is the economics behind exism movements a la TEMPORARY AUTHORITARIANISM.....like Trumpism....Trumpconomics is chained supply and chained demand economics the inverse of REGANOMICS as reganomics is based on free markets and trumpconomics is based on chained non-free markets....

2) Your comments and those of the academics you cite are talking about chaos and its impacts and possible uses under normal economic science based liberal democracy, but trumpconomics is the extreme economic view under extreme liberal democracy or under temporary authoritarianism SO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT TYPE OF CHAOS, TARGETED CHAOS with the best interest of the exism movement not of the country or the world.

3) If the targeted chaos, locally or abroad, is effective, beside maintaining power locally they maintain dominance externally as without effective targeted chaos and under an independent rule of law system exism movements can not stay in power for ever which is why they are temporary authoritarianism movements...

4) To understand Trumpconomics both as a force to deal with and a force to revert you need to understand that in 2016 BRXIT/2016 USEXIT the liberal democracy landscape shifted from competition for power within different normal democratic movements or different democratic views that have the best of the country/majority as the driving force to competition for power between normal democratic outcomes and extreme democratic outcomes/exism movements/temporary authoritarianism, where the normal democrratic outcome has the welbeing of the majority and the loyalty to the country at heart first while extreme liberal democracy has the best interest of the minority and loyalty to the movement at heart first.

5) So exism movements a la Trumpconomics need to create constant effective targeted chaos locally and abroad to create spaces that allow them to accumulate more power locally and abroad by disruption of, political or economic, of systems seen as tools can can be used, if needed destroy, to cement and grow power, locally and abroad.... Effective targeted chaos is what allow and sustain exism movements a la temporary authoritarianism like trumpism.

I have published a paper on Trumpconomics and I have published 9 papers on RETHINKING DEMOCRACY, which can be use to show that TRADITIONAL DEMOCRATIC THINKERS AND NORMAL DEMOCRACY POLITICIANS APPARENTLY have missed the ball since 2016.

I appreciate your comment

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Thank you for commenting

Dear Lucio,

Thank you for your detailed and thought-provoking response. I truly appreciate the clarity with which you've distinguished between Trumponomics (as the policy framework under Trump), Trumpconomics (as a deeper ideological-economic mechanism within exism/temporary authoritarianism), and their contrasts with traditional economic models like Reaganomics. That conceptual differentiation adds an important layer to the conversation.

You're right to highlight that my initial analysis, drawing from IR theories and political economy frameworks was more grounded in the broader logics of state behavior and elite power structures within conventional liberal democracies. Your perspective, by contrast, examines how targeted chaos functions not just as a byproduct or strategic tool of global competition, but as an essential mechanism of survival and dominance within what you call extreme democratic outcomes or exism movements.

I find particularly compelling your point that effective targeted chaos is necessary for such movements to consolidate control, locally and internationally, by destabilising institutions, co-opting loyalty away from the nation-state and toward the movement itself. In this sense, Trumpconomics (as you describe it) indeed represents a paradigm shift, where economic levers are not merely misused or short-sighted, but deliberately weaponized to engineer disruption that sustains alternative power structures.

This invites an important rethinking of the role of economics under regimes that straddle the line between democracy and authoritarianism. If the goal is no longer national prosperity but systemic destabilization to create vacuum-filled power zones, then our analytical frameworks, whether from IR, political economy, or democratic theory must adapt accordingly.

I’ll be sure to explore your publications on Trumpconomics and Rethinking Democracy; they sound directly relevant to this evolving discourse. Thank you again for engaging so generously with my comment and expanding the horizon of this debate.

Respectfully, Subham

I noticed in 2015 that the ideas behind BREXIT if they materialize would represent a paradigm shift that was going to be missed by traditional democratic thinkers, traditional economic thinking and traditional political.economic thinkers because of the.paradigm.shift knowledge gaps it was creating so I started writing about how extreme democratic outcomes can con from withing majority rules liberalmdemocracies, basic theory of voter complacency, expanded to the role of chaos, the to the need for effective targeted chaos, to defining Trumpconomics and how it should be expected to work, expanded to the rise and falling Trumpism and the threat of the route from temporary authoritarianis to permanent authoritarianism from within. From 2016 to 2024, the ideas were out there and were being read, but silence.... the Trumpism/Trumpconomic rule was coming back by 2024 and politicians and academics were seeing their policies are illogical or stupid or nonsense as they were/are looking at the situation WITH THE WRONG LENSE, hence their reactions are not just out of place they are adding more chaos feeding the circle of effective targeted chaos that feeds more chaos and hence playing the Trumpconomics game... In 2024 as a result of this apparent confusion I wrote and published 9 articles on RETHINKING DEMOCRACY as now the competition for power is between normal democratic outcomes(NORMAL LIBERAL DEMOCRACY) and extreme democratic outcomes(TEMPORARY AUTHORITARIANISM).....

I appreciate your comment I think you are ready to bring your own spin to this new way of thinking.

Respectfully yours

Lucio

While not an explicit goal, chaos creation in supply chain economics—through uncertainty, tariff shocks, or political disruptions—can be used strategically to force domestic re-shoring, shift bargaining power, or reduce reliance on geopolitical rivals, though it often results in inefficiency and higher consumer costs.

Chuck, if you look at economics from inside the box it is not seen as an explicit goal of normal or science based economics, but Trumpconomics is non-science based. However, in trumpconomics a loss to the country if it means more power for the exism movement/the minory it is a win... in my paper on TRUMPCONOMICS and Rethinking Democracy I indicate that trumpconomics is an economics that if the policy is right for both the country and the movement, it is a win,,,, if the country loses, but the movement gains more or create mor power for itself it is also a win.

I appreciate your comment