Despite the containing of useful information, A Financial times Story makes some enigmatic statements (“Trump nominated unites right and left with a tough antitrust view” Financial timesMarch 7, 2025):
Among the loyalists who have been selected by Donald Trump to man his second administration, Gail Slater distinguishes itself for another reason: she unites on the right and left with a skeptical image of large companies.
While the other nominees of the US President tend to be traditional conservative free market proponents, it is expected to be expected to lead his choice to lead the antitrust department of the Ministry of Justice, the powerful approach to the enforcement of Wall Street’s enforcement. …
Slater embodies the unlikely coordination of progressives that support heavy antitrust enforcement and a new generation of populist conservatives.
Who are the other nominees of the US president [who] Are usually traditional conservative proponents of free market? “The” proponents of free market “are hard to find in the entourage of Trump, or they are stupid. No lawyer for free market can reject free trade among individuals in the way Trump and his entourage do that. As I have argued before, the “unlikely coordination of progressives … and a new generation of populist conservatives” is easy to understand. It has only become tighter and visible. Historically, populist rulers from the right and on the left have defended the primacy of collective and political choices against individual and private choices, such as the Experience with Latin -America Shows.
Antitrust laws, which give extraordinary power to the state, are just one illustration. We would expect that such a power would of course be used by the state rulers of the day to choose parties for their preferred customers and against individuals and groups that do not fit well in their ideal economic organization. It was only a matter of time before this power, in advanced ‘democratic’ countries, could be openly used against ‘enemies of the state’. It can now happen in the United States. The Financial times report that
A banking house of the top said that business leaders fear that antitrust can be used under Trump to punish enemies and reward friends in ways that are unpredictable.
The fact that the Ministry of Justice has opened an investigation into the price of eggs seems to confirm this fear: a scapegoat must be found to explain why the president has failed to lower food prices “Starting on day one“As he had promised (“The Ministry of Justice opens the probe of a sharp rise in egg prices” Wall Street JournalMarch 7, 2025).
It would not be the first time that the political power was intervened in the court of justice, but the fact that the Doj is now almost officially employed by the “vision” of the president makes witch hunting and more dangerous (“Trump tighter grip on the FBI and the Ministry of Justice” Wall Street JournalMarch 7, 2025). Ten years ago, most Americans probably thought that the danger of lawlessness of the state had been withdrawn since J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon. The Wall Street Journal Writes:
While every FBI director has made difficulty keeping the White House in the arms since J. Edgar Hoover, the new Trump government has taken the opposite tack, working to bring the traditional independent ethos of the FBI and the Ministry of Justice firmly within the President’s grip. …
Louis Freeh, who was director under former President Bill Clinton, annoyed the president by giving up at work during his first week at work, after he heard that Clinton was being investigated for a controversial land deal, known as the Whitewater scandal.
James Comey refused to play basketball with former President Barack Obama because he did not want to appear too chummy with the man who appointed him.
One of the few areas of public policy where individual freedom seemed to have been strengthened in recent decades was indeed in the quasi-discontinuation of the incestuous relationship between politicians and the legal person. Of course the state continued to grow, but most individuals seemed better protected against striking random power.
What good intuitions and commendable intentions Mr. Trump has – and he has spoken a number – they look like random blips that will probably fail between his Enervated Interventionism, his imperial entertainment and the falling in collective choices he shares with the other major political party. He just wants to impose different flavors and values on the 50.2% of voters who have not voted for him and, tragic, on many Rational ignorant voters in 49.8%. A serious danger is that this will be considered for the defense of individual freedom.
*****************************
Jean-Baptiste Colbert Writing a report for the king, as thought by Dall-E (with some external influence)