While both Reaganomics and Trumpconomics aim to stimulate economic growth, they do so with different philosophies and approaches:

These differences Lucio Muñoz in tax policy focus and regulatory approach highlight the distinct economic philosophies and priorities between Reagan and Trump.

Reagan's administration was primarily focused on reducing inflation. I think that they were too aggressive in this regard and created unnecessary recession . . . but they were successful in squeezing inflation out of the system.

So far, Trump seems unfocused on inflation and recession. (he may change his mind on this) Instead, he seems intent on bringing jobs back to the U.S. He has taken tariffs as the chief mechanism for accomplishing that. I cannot imagine Reagan doing that.

It might be useful to mention that Reagan and Trump differ regarding the quantity of air traffic controllers. Reagan seemed to relish conflict with air traffic controllers, whereas Trump would appear to want more . . . but not more DEI hires.

Stephen and Peter, thank you for taking the time to comment, keep in mind three different concepts,reaganomics, trumponomics, and trumpconomics.... supply side economics/the old Republican party, the policies of President Trump/MAGA republican party, and chained supply based economics/the economics behind EXISM movements, more than just policy, but the economics of temporary authoritarianism under effective targeted chaos and a clash with the independent rule of law and local and international independent systems and organizations

Stephen your comment relates to reaganomics and trumponomics.

Peter, in both reaganomics and trumpconomics, the policies tend toward recession, but recessions in reaganomics come as unexpected extreme outcomes as it assumes a responsible perfect maximizer while in trumpconomics it should not come as a surprise as it needs an irresponsible perfect.maximizer.... are you familiar with the armageddon expectation rule at the heart of trumpconomics?

Respectfully yours?

Lucio

Each of these frameworks constructs a different relationship between economics and governance. Reaganomics focuses on market-driven principles and long-term growth via reduced government intervention, Trumponomics adapts those principles within a nationalist and protectionist context, while Trumpconomics delves into the implications of using chaos and authoritarian tactics to reorganize power structures in the economic landscape.

Understanding these differences, you are right Lucio Muñoz ,offers insight into contemporary economic discussions within the Republican party and the broader implications for American governance.

Trumpconomics represents surely a more abstract economic philosophy that explores how temporary authoritarianism and populist movements can create economic structures that emphasize chaos as a means to consolidate power, destabilizing traditional economic systems and institutions:

• An embrace of uncertainty and disruption as tools for achieving policy goals, which can destabilize traditional economic practices while rallying support.
• A growing trend to undermine the rule of law and independent regulatory bodies, which could create an environment that favors crony capitalism or favors certain groups over others.
• An exploration of economic systems based on exclusivity and populism, often driven by charismatic leaders who appeal to nationalist sentiments. This could lead to economic isolationism which, while initially appealing to certain demographics, may destabilize more integrated economic systems.

While theoretically designed to empower specific groups or ideologies, such systems can often generate long-term economic instability, reliance on authoritarian governance, and deterioration of democratic institutions.

Best: stephen

Yes, Stephen, that is the key.

If you invert Reaganomics thinking, free markets (competing in a world of real economic facts) operating in the best interest of the country/the true majority you get to Trumpconomics thinking, non-free markets (competing in a world of ALTERNATIVE ECONOMIC FACTS) operating in the best interest of the exism movement(eg. Trumpism)/THE TRUE MINORITY. The loyalty in Reaganomics is to the country and flourishes under stability, the loyalty in Trumpconomics is to the EXISM movement and flourishes under effective targeted chaos, and hence full deregulation and mass firings and mass defunding and full capture of the legal system are tools to maintain effective targeted chaos, perhaps with the goal to maximize targeted chaos on the road of the road to the next election. In a paper I recently published I show the necessary and sufficient conditions for exism movements like Trumpism to stay in power whether or not it legally wins elections, taking the structure now of permanent authoritarianism.

Your analysis presents a thought-provoking contrast between Reaganomics and what you term "Trumpconomics," highlighting a shift in ideological frameworks and the implications for governance and economic policy.

In Reaganomics, the emphasis on free markets and supply-side economics is framed within a patriotic narrative that seeks to benefit the country as a whole, promoting competitive capitalism and economic growth. This approach values stability and the rule of law, with the belief that a rising tide raises all boats.

In contrast, your characterization of Trumpconomics suggests a departure from these principles, leaning instead towards a model that embraces chaos and operates under a different set of narratives—what you describe as "alternative economic facts." This pivot appears to support a more insular and populist agenda that prioritizes the interests of a specific faction ("the true minority") over the broader population. The focus on targeted chaos and legal system manipulation indicates a strategy aimed at consolidating power rather than promoting the welfare of the general populace.

Your mention of "exism movements" suggests a framework for understanding how such populist movements can maintain authority, even in the absence of conventional electoral success. This raises important questions about the sustainability of democratic institutions and the capacity for minority rule to persist. By defining the conditions for the longevity of authoritarian tendencies within these movements, your paper may contribute significant insights to ongoing discussions about the erosion of democratic norms and governance.

It would be interesting to delve deeper into the mechanisms that you propose enable these exism movements to maintain control, especially in the face of opposition or dissent. Additionally, examining historical precedents or comparative case studies could enrich the discourse on the implications of this type of governance for economic stability, social cohesion, and civic engagement.

Your exploration Lucio Muñoz of these contrasting economic ideologies reflects broader cultural and political tensions that are shaping contemporary discourse in the United States and beyond.

Yes, that is the perfect analysis of main differences at the core of my writings under extreme vrs normal economic outcomes within the liberal democracy landscape after 2016 BREXIT and at the core of my 10 articles on RETHINKING DEMOCRACY... Obama, Biden, Harris, Clinton missed understanding the true nature of Trumpconomics when trying to fight it had they understood since 2016 that now competition was between normal liberal democracy and temporary authoritarianism they could have while in power take PROACTIVE action i) to make changes to make it more difficult legally to advance targeted chaos as a political tool to access power, ii) to ensure the right to vote and be counted is binding, iii) to put it in writing that nobody is above the law, nor the president nor the members of the different branches of governments, iv) to limit presidential immunity to discourage legally obscure actions, v) to make political lies as private lies under libel law so the democratic discourse is within real facts that can be upheld by independent courts, vi) to strengthening monitoring bodies to ensure complaints, internal and external, in all branches of goverment; vii) to ensure that the independency of the court is fully protected regardless of who is in power to prevent the coming of permanent authoritarianism from within, and viii) to ensure that different levels of government are fully independent of each other so one branch branch can not ignore/avoid the actions of independent branches in terms of policies to follow or monitoring responsibilitis....and so on..... All those leader in power or trying to access power before and after 2016 Trumpism win, took this extreme democratic outcome, in a way perhaps because of this extreme democratic outcome paradigm shift knowledge gap, as something normal, but weird when it is abnormal and rational from the point of view of the irresponsible perfect maximizer that leads this populism with a mask movement at the heart of Trumpconomics...

Stephen, now that you can see what TRUMPCONOMICS is about, it is possible to see how it can be counteracted as chained supply economics under a cold war against free market/free trade rest of the world as then trumpconomics could collapse in a quick recession spiral as the cost of local producers and consumers maximizes while the cost of free market/free trade rest of the world producers and consumers minimizing in the long term.... And this means that a new strategy free market based from outside may lead to the fall of Trumpconomics, but even Canada politicians have not been able to figure out this as they quickly went from tariff to tariff as you would have done if you were fighting against REAGANOMICS, but this is an alternative facts Trumpconomics led trade war that requires a different economic strategy from the rest of the world.... Notice that temporary authoritarianism and permanent authoritarianism countries can be at one point useful friends when against normal liberal democracy/economy during election time and during external and external authoritarianism normalization processes to pass the extreme as normal....

The idea of chained supply economics suggests that a protectionist approach (like Trump’s) could lead to higher costs for local producers and consumers. If the U.S. becomes isolated or adopts strict tariffs, it may incentivize other countries with free market principles to leverage their competitive advantages. This could result in a recessionary spiral as local industries struggle to compete with lower-cost alternatives from abroad.

You suggest that a concerted effort from the free market/free trade-oriented nations could undermine the principles of Trumpconomics. If these countries cooperate to maximize trade efficiency and minimize barriers, they could produce goods at lower costs, thereby making it difficult for protectionist economies to compete.

Your mention of Canada highlights a struggle faced by many nations in responding to a shifting economic environment dominated by protectionism. Instead of adopting a coherent strategy against tariffs, policymakers can sometimes react in fragmented ways, leading to a cycle of reactive tariffs. This lack of a unified approach may hinder successful counteractions against protectionist policies.

The notion that authoritarian regimes could temporarily align with democracies against a common adversary presents a complex geopolitical landscape. During election cycles or crises, these alliances can be strategic, yet they may also offer long-term challenges for liberal democracies. The normalization of authoritarian practices can complicate international relations, especially when authoritarian regimes leverage their temporary alliances for their own gains.

The challenges posed by Trumpconomics highlight the need for innovative economic strategies from countries that prioritize free trade. Developing a cohesive response—perhaps focusing on collaborative trade agreements, reinforced multilateralism, and innovative economic policies—could help mitigate the impact of protectionist policies while maintaining a commitment to free market ideals.

Navigating the complexities Lucio Muñoz of Trumpconomics and its global implications requires a multifaceted strategy focused on cooperation, innovation, and resilience in the face of protectionism. This will require rethinking ( as you wisely do ) traditional approaches to trade, diplomacy, and economic policy in a world increasingly marked by geopolitical shifts.

Yes, Stephen, that is a good take on what it is Trumpconomics and its local and global implications and the need to stop living in the past THINKING THAT THE PARADIGM SHIFT in liberal democratic landscape can be addressed with past knowledge when it requires either new thinking or updated thinking to close the knowledge and awareness gap that was created since 2016 BREXIT when the liberal democracy landscape shifted from competition for power between different normal democratic outcomes to competition between normal democratic outcomes/NORMAL LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES/ and extreme democratic outcomes/EXTREME LIBERAL DEMOCRACY/TEMPORARY AUTHORITARIANISM.

But I have noticed something curious, I have been writing about these issues since 2015, including a paper on TRUMPCONOMICS in 2019, its meaning, its nature and how it should be expected to work locally and global, which has turned out to be right on..., and even though my publicatiions are being read given the relevant of the issue for ALL MAJORITY RULED LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES they have not been read as much as I expected yet, but the problem is not going away any time soon as permanent authoritarianism and temporary authoritarianism will support each and support other exism movements as the common enemy is normal liberal democracy values and institutions; and hence, the relevance of this knowledge remains the same...The playbook for all exism movements from within to come to exist and persist within majority rule based democratic systems is the same and the expected tendency towards permanent authoritarianism is the same as the need to remain in power even when legally losing elections is the same;;;Brexit, Usexit, Brazilianexit, Italianexit, Hungarianexit, ,Argentinexit...

The situation you Lucio Muñoz are describing underscores the fragile nature of democracy and the ongoing struggle between authoritarian impulses and democratic ideals. Addressing these challenges requires vigilance, active citizenship, and a commitment to uphold democratic principles.

In systems where majority rule is the norm, there's a risk that the elected majority may chip away at democratic norms and institutions. This can happen through the undermining of judicial independence, media freedom, and checks and balances, as leaders seek to consolidate power.

Once in power, leaders may leverage populist rhetoric and appeal to national identity to justify authoritarian measures. They can frame opposition as unpatriotic or as a threat to the nation, further entrenching their position.

The "exit" movements you mention (e.g., Brexit, Usexit, etc.) often reflect a reaction against globalization, immigration, and perceived loss of national sovereignty. While they may arise from legitimate concerns, they can also provide cover for populist leaders to enact more authoritarian policies under the guise of national interest.

The examples you've cited indicate a global trend where various countries are experiencing similar tensions between democratic ideals and authoritarian practices. These movements often reflect deeper societal divisions, economic grievances, and frustrations with the political establishment.

The ability of a democracy to resist authoritarianism often hinges on the strength of its institutions, the active engagement of civil society, and the protection of individual rights. When these elements are weak or under attack, the slide toward authoritarianism can become more pronounced.

Stephen, to be able to address that in a science based manner, not a political manner I started to write papers step by step, what are normal democratic outcomes, what are extreme democratic outcome, how they come to exist, how they come to persist, how they can be prevented or make it more difficult to come to exist, how to flip them once they come to exist, how the shift from normal democratic outcomes to extreme democratic outcome looks like, what makes normal democratic outcomes shift to extreme democratic outcomes, the role of chaos, targeted chaos and effective targeted chaos, the theory of Trumpconomics and local and global implications, what happens under an independent rule of law system, under a perceived captured legal system, and under a full capture legal system, what is the structure of perfect democracy, normal liberal democracy, temporary authoritarianism, and permanent authoritarianism in terms of effective targeted chaos and an independent rule of law system to understand simple necessary and sufficient conditions to stay in power or to lose power....Using complacency theory without chaos and complacency theory under chaos to show the tools that are needed just to come to exist and persist, and the tools that are needed to move from one paradigm to another or to flip back, and use all those tools to state simple science based predictions based on present-absence abnormality theory... some selected papers from 2016 to 2025 from about 25 papers from the base first paper in 2017 on complacency and the continuing expansion of the idea from different angles to now 2025.... Without understanding the nature of the problem you are addressing it in the dark and that is why normal democracy leaders are still lost today as democratic and economic thinkers did not adjust their thinking since 2016 BREXIT when the democratic and economic landscaped CHANGED....

Muñoz, Lucio, 2017. Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory: Pointing Out The Structure of Normal and of Extreme Democratic Outcomes Analytically and Graphically.

Article Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory:...

Muñoz, Lucio, 2017. Upside Down Democratic Outcomes: Stating the Complacency Conditions Under Which Extreme Democratic Outcomes Such as BREXIT and USEXIT Should Be Expected to Take Place Using Qualitative Comparative Means

Article Upside Down Democratic Outcomes: Stating the Complacency Con...

Muñoz, Lucio, 2019.    Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can Affect the Democratic Process?, In: International Journal of Management Studies and Social Science Research(IJMSSSR), Volume 1, Issue 2, March-April, Ed. Dr.Vishal Muvel, India.

Data Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can...

Muñoz, Lucio, 2019. The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically

Data The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme libe...

Muñoz, Lucio, 2025. Rethinking democracy 107: Placing the post 2016 liberal democracy landscape under independent rule of law variability system to indicate when to expect peaceful transfer of powers and when not when parties lose elections. In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año 19, Nº 2, February, La Paz, Bolivia.

Article Rethinking democracy 107: Placing the post 2016 liberal demo...

Muñoz, Lucio, 2025. Rethinking democracy 109: Temporary authoritarianism versus normal liberal democracy competition under perceived capture and fully captured independent legal systems: When we should not expect a peaceful transfer of power and when not to expect a transfer of power at all? In: International Journal of Humanities Social Science and Management (IJHSSM), Volume 5, Issue 1, Jan.-Feb., pp: 806-827 ISSN: 3048-6874. Copy rights Lucio Muñoz

Article Rethinking democracy 109: Temporary authoritarianism versus ...

To navigate the complexities of today's socio-political landscape, leveraging tools from complacency theory and chaos analysis is critical. Democratic leaders will need to adapt their strategies to recognize the changing dynamics that emerged post-Brexit.

The failure to do so signals not only complacency but a broader misunderstanding of the interconnectedness of economic and democratic systems—one that must evolve continuously to meet the demands of an increasingly chaotic world.

Engaging with current literature and your Lucio Muñoz case studies from 2016 to 2025 will provide a richer understanding of these dynamics and offer actionable insights for the future.

The economic science based liberal democracy model is a mixed of two status quo systems, the traditional economy theory status quo and the traditional democratic theory status quo, resisting the need to adapt a la Thomas Kuhn when paradigm shifts take place and the paradigm shift knowledge gaps created needs to be closed to be able to operate/handle/understand the new competing paradigms in this case traditional economic thinking vrs Trumpconomics; and normal democratic system vrs extreme democratic systems, competing in the same space, economic and democratic.

It is a no brainer that traditional economic thinking does not work in the Trumpconomics world and Trumpconomics thinking does not work in the traditional economic world; and also that normal democratic values are inconsistent with extreme democracy values and that extreme democratic values are inconsistent with normal democratic values, yet the post BREXIT 2016 knowledge gaps economic science based liberal democracy model are still widespread today despite work available out there since BREXIT; and this slowness in closing the paradigm shift knowledge gaps has made it easier for exism movements to come to exist and then to persist as they are following a playbook the normal democratic thinkers can not read under knowledge gaps, putting democracies at risk as then they are one step away of PERMANENT AUTHORITARIANISM.

What I see as a surprise to others since 2016 in terms of exism / Trumpconomics dynamics is what my work suggest we should expect so it not surprising to me.

I appreciate the time you took to comment Stephen, I will leave it here.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Problem root is that USA government as most people know has a big deficit fiscal "The U.S. budget deficit grew to $1.833 trillion for fiscal 2024, the highest outside of the COVID era, as interest on the federal debt exceeded $1 trillion for the first time and spending grew for the Social Security retirement program, health care and the military, the Treasury Department said on Friday".Source. CNBC on line.

Trump tariffs and protectionism are measures to reduce it. However, USA deficit has many causes and there is a Economic interrelationship between countries. In colloquial terms, tariffs and protectionism is to back to the Past,It could be a Trade War.

Reagan administration, the United States economy experienced a decade of high unemployment and persistently high inflation. "Reaganism, were the neoliberal economic policies promoted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. These policies focused mainly on supply-side economics"

There is a coincidence between Reagan and Trump to reduce taxes for people with higher incomes

Thank you for commenting, Martha.

Tax cut to the rich ARE NOT A COINCIDENCE between Reaganomics and Trumpconomics, one is a freeway and the other is forced way of implementing THE TRICKLE-DOWN EXPECTATION that never materializes that in the long run leads to high unemployment and persistent high inflations JUST GIVE Trumpconomics half of the 4 years it has left and it may turned out that it will lead to higher employment and inflation than Reaganomics or be within that range.

Dear Lucio

I agree with you "Tax cut to the rich ARE NOT A COINCIDENCE between Reaganomics and Trumpconomics" only add Tax Cut is for most rich people. Iam no sure, is obvious that taxes will be increase for middle classes.

Martha, just some days over the 100 days of Trumpconomics and you start to see the market signs and the inflationary signs that you should expect, but for the dismay of normal democratic thinkers and main stream economists more effective targeted chaos from a cycle of targeted chaos is what is needed for the persistence of exism movements as without effective targeted chaos under an independent rule of law system they can not keep power forever so they will continue to add chaos quick and as much as they can to extend their life span as exism movement as longer as possible....

Lucio,

• Trumponomics focuses on tax cuts, deregulation, protectionism, and trade.
• Milton Friedman stated, "Reaganomics had four simple principles: Lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, restrained government spending, noninflationary monetary policy.

Of course, there are coincidences on tax cuts and restrained government spending.

Martha, the question is about *

"TRUMPCONOMICS, not about TRUMPONOMICS"..., and distinctions were already shared. Have you had time to read the article I shared? Trumpconomics focuses on BLOWING UP all those aspects of reaganomics you list by Friedman.....

Lucio, sorry by the mistake, I konw is Trumpconomics. You say that Trumpconomics focuses on BLOWING UP all those aspects of reaganomics, not necessarily.

As you know "The pillars of Reagan's economic policy included increasing defense spending, balancing the federal budget and slowing the growth of government spending, reducing the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reducing government regulation, and tightening the money supply in order to reduce inflation"

Just I see the difference with Trump policy: trade war and its effects economic, social and political in the world, its impact is holistic.

Best Regards

Martha, I appreciate your comments. Reaganomics had the best interest of the country at heart, Trumoconomics has the best interest of the exism movement like Trumpism at hear, hence if the country/true malirity is hurt but the movement wins IT IS A WIN. Then, trumpconomics is a rational tool for exism movement based economic thinking...but to be able to see this we need to think outside the box...

Let's leave it here Martha!

Respectfully yours

Lucio

Reaganomics focused on supply-side tax cuts, deregulation, and monetarist control of inflation to spur long-term growth, while Trumponomics leaned more on protectionism, aggressive trade policy (like tariffs), and short-term stimulus via tax cuts and deregulation, differing mainly in their approach to global trade and fiscal discipline.

Chuck, thank you for replying?

We need think outside the box to be able to see the differences that helps us understand the working of trumpconomics both in theory and in practice.....

Reaganomics, free supply side economics, put the best interest of the country/of the true majority first, science based, free and independent choice...linked with democracy protection and improvement principles, free trade.......free trickledown expectation.....

Trumpconomics, chained supply side economics, put the best interest of the movement/the true minority first, non-science based, non free and non-independent choice, linked to democracy dismantling and erosion principles, trade protection....chained trickle down expectation,,,.

The trickle down expectaion when free did not materialized even though the economic environment was stable, tax break to the rich was not reinvested as expected..... We should not expect the chain trickle down expectation to materialize too in a highly caotic economic environment...tax breaks to the rich should be expected to be in the bank or safety box....

Have you ever read the article below? It has some good food for thoughts,

The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically

The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically