Expressing a contradiction can show clear ignorance or cognitive bias. It can also suggest a hypothesis or theory that explains the contradiction. Consider a current example.
On the one hand, President Donald Trump claimed that he would be a fool not to accept the gift of an aircraft of $ 400 million from a foreign autocrat (‘Republicans express their concern about Trump’s plane gift while going to Qatar” Wall Street JournalUpdated May 14, 2025):
“Only a fool would not accept this gift on behalf of our country,” Trump wrote on his social media platform. … During an interview with the Fox News -Gastheer Sean Hannity on Tuesday evening, Trump called the proposed gift “a nice gesture” and in various critics dollars as “stupid”.
On the other hand, Trump denies the freedom of the American residents to import goods produced in China, a reason is that their production is deemed to be labeled by the Chinese state. He has one -sided very high and often priceless rates on these goods (he withdrew later, but high rates remain). An example that Mr. Trump used his dolls, both in his first term and in more recently (‘‘Marie Antoinette Moment’ by Donald Trump: Call for National Sacrifice Falls flat” Financial timesMay 4, 2025), explain:
“Maybe the children have two dolls instead of 30 dolls … and maybe the two dolls cost a few dollars more than normal.”
Chinese electric cars offer a similar example. Now very competitive with Teslas, these cars had won a market share of 50% of EVs in the European Union before new import rates there have been reduced to 30% (“Chinese car manufacturers reset European ambitions such as EU rates bite” Financial timesApril 28, 2025). The Zeegull produced by BYD should be available for in the UK for £ 18,000 Later this year, which includes mandatory safety upgrades and a rate of 10% (plus the VAT of 20%, a sales tax imposed on all cars sold in the country, domestic or foreign). Without the priceless rates and non-tariff barriers in the US, the seagull would cost $ 24,000 here (at the current exchange rate). Without obstacles from a government that ‘owns the store’, many ordinary Americans would probably be interested. Perhaps only a (non-rich) fool would not.
BYD is a private company Mentioned in Hong Kong. In 2023, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway owned a share of 8%. It is subsidized by the industrial policy of the Chinese state, only more interventionist than what the prayers and the Trumps are crazy about. (“How China’s BYD catched up with Tesla” Financial timesJuly 6, 2022.)
There is a convincing moral argument, in addition to a legal obligation, against buying stolen goods. It is probably not applicable to goods subsidized by taxpayers. If so, there is a large number of goods that one could not buy, even in their own country. In the case of dolls and other goods produced by small companies or one -man companies in China, production subsidies are probably not available.
Regarding the argument that foreign government subsidies generate ‘unfair trade’, it is important to understand that free trade remains efficient – even assuming that the importer does not receive a subsidy from his own government. For a group of individuals (say, a ‘nation’), free trade, such as economic freedom in general, means their freedom to act if they can find a buyer who is willing to pay their price or if they can find a seller whose price they accept. In a free society, every individual or private organization decides to buy something and from whom. The fact that some competitors will be disappointed is no more a valid objection than the observation that every consumer buys something implies that another consumer is superfluous. In this vision, Americans must be free, without special taxes called rates or priceless rates or non-tariff barriers to import goods from China, even if they are subsidized by the unfortunate Chinese taxpayer. To speak like Mr. Trump, only a fool would not accept a car that is partially served by Chinese taxpayers. (See also my message “Taking a comparative benefit seriously”.).
A country where civil servants can accept and even be able to pursue the corrumption of gifts from foreign autocrats, but where private individuals could not accept gifts through trade, looks like a free society upside down.
How can we explain the contradiction that by Mr. Trump is being expressed? Ignorance or cognitive deficit can, among other things, offer explanations. A compulsive liar will undoubtedly be entangled in contradictions because he does not remember his previous lies and yet does not care about the truth. Or maybe, like Molière’s Mr. Jourdain did prose without knowing it, Mr. Trump itself to SolipSism – the philosophy that only exists his own self. Another possibility in the present case is the implicit or sometimes explicit pretension of populism: the leader embodies ‘the people’, and every gift to him is a gift to him the people.