Trump's so-called "greatness" is "maximizing cash"

Author: Economist Sheng Hong

Trump aims to maximize cash, ignores or underestimates public goods that are difficult to cash out, and reduces related cash expenditures, which can only reduce cash income more, making the United States further away from "greatness".

Less than two months after taking office, Trump's violent behavior and outrageous language have been criticized and accused by many people. However, Trump, who came to power with the slogan "Make America Great Again", is fulfilling his campaign promise, but he is fulfilling it with his understanding of "greatness". Through seemingly chaotic words and deeds, he has clear goals and clear logic. It's just that there are some problems with the goals and the logic is also biased.
I have said that Trump and Musk, as businessmen, especially Musk as a successful businessman, will make big mistakes when they use their successful experience in public governance. This is mainly because enterprises face simple systems, while governments face complex systems. Successful experiences in simple systems cannot be applied to complex systems. This is like applying the science that is successful in simple systems to a society that is a complex system, and trying to "design" a "rational" society - a planned economy, which results in disaster. The arguments in this regard can be very in-depth, and can be philosophical, epistemological, or mathematical (such as the NP problem). However, these theories are not intuitive enough and are difficult for ordinary people to understand. In fact, they can also be explained from an intuitive and empirical point of view, and then they can be argued by economics.

In an enterprise, what is efficiency and what is success? The judgment is very simple, that is, success in the market. It has two characteristics. One is that the market can monetize the value of goods and clearly measure the value of the enterprise's efforts; the other is that the market directly gives cash rewards. Cash is an important factor in the operation of an enterprise. If a product has good future expectations, but cannot give cash returns at present, and cannot be discounted as a tradable asset value, it will lead to poor or even interrupted capital operation of the enterprise, and the enterprise will not be able to repay its debts on time, and the enterprise will go bankrupt. Therefore, cash is king in an enterprise. In an enterprise, investments that have great economic value but no cash returns for a considerable period of time are regarded as "inefficient." However, the "value" and "efficiency" in enterprises are narrow in meaning and do not include positive externalities, that is, benefits that enterprises cannot collect but spill over to society or others. A person who has been running an enterprise for a long time will subtly accumulate such awareness through experience, and promote it to become a habit or instinct, which cannot be easily changed.

The government provides public goods. Unlike private goods provided by enterprises, the definition of public goods is goods that cannot be exclusively owned and consumed, and thus cannot or are not easily evaluated by the market. Professor Zhang Wuchang said in layman's terms that public goods are goods that cannot be charged to individuals. That is why taxes were invented. Therefore, first, the value of public goods cannot be directly evaluated by the market; second, the supply of public goods cannot directly obtain cash returns. Such goods include national defense, public health, education, scientific research, social security, assistance to vulnerable groups, and foreign aid. However, public goods actually create value. For example, national defense guarantees that the country is not invaded by foreign forces, and enables the people to produce and trade in a safe environment. The results of basic scientific research cannot be immediately turned into commodities for sale, but they can develop new theories to inspire people's innovation. This shows that appropriate and reasonable public goods are an environment for enterprise efficiency and an indispensable condition for social prosperity.
Economics has long discussed the similarities and differences between public goods and private goods. In the textbook of microeconomics, there are descriptions of the pricing methods of private goods and public goods. On the supply and demand curve, the utility curves of private goods of many individuals are horizontally accumulated, and the price formed by the intersection with the supply curve is directly felt by each individual, and can also directly determine their own demand based on this. However, the utility curve of public goods is to be accumulated vertically, so that each individual does not know the result of the accumulation and the price of public goods formed thereby (theoretical). The value of public goods can only be evaluated through the public choice process. To know the value of public goods, sometimes we need the help of economists. We were commissioned by the Dongcheng District Government of Beijing to estimate the establishment of a digital urban management system in the district. The reason why the district commissioned us to make the estimate at that time was because some people questioned whether this system was not worth the cost.
So we can understand what Musk meant by "efficiency" in his "Government Efficiency Department". That is to regard all projects that only spend money but have no cash returns as "inefficient". He set a goal to cut government spending by $2 trillion, which is good. But he simply cut government projects that have no immediate cash returns, just like cutting unprofitable projects in a company, but the results are very different. In a company, the reduced supply of products or services will be replaced by competitors, and the reduced income will be borne by the company itself; but in the government, this will also reduce the corresponding supply of public goods, but no one will replace it. This is something he cannot see. And government projects have no cash income, so he cannot feel it. This can explain why he closed the International Development Agency at the beginning, which cut 40 billion in annual expenditures at once (Kobayashi, 2025), but did not reduce cash returns? All because what the agency does is to help different specific groups of people, and generally speaking, it is to improve the international reputation of the United States. This kind of public goods is more ethereal and not seen by Musk. Regarding reputation, economics has also developed the concept of "reputation capital", which can increase corporate sales and reduce costs. It can also be extended to the country, but the country is too large and too complex, and the benefits of reputation are too indirect.
Musk's other big goal is scientific research. He cut the National Science Foundation of the United States by two-thirds of its funding, about 6.1 billion US dollars, and cut the National Institutes of Health of the United States by 4 billion US dollars. The reason is that scientific research results are decreasing or management costs are too high (First Financial Daily, 2025). In the final analysis, scientific research cannot bring direct cash returns. The final result of scientific research can be new products and new technologies, which can be sold for cash returns. But from the initial idea to the mass production of the final product, it takes a long process to go through multiple links. Especially in the initial germination of ideas, the brewing of theoretical innovation, academic exchanges and debates, and the proposal of new theories, there is no direct cash return, which is almost the same as public goods. At this time, private investment is rare, and private donations will also have a gap. Government investment in public goods such as scientific research is an important factor in ensuring leadership. In the United States, government-funded scientific research funds are mainly used for basic academic research, and less for applied research. This is more in line with the nature of public goods. Because of this nature, the evaluation of scientific research results lacks clarity.
In fact, in addition to some quantitative indicators of scientific research, such as the rate of disruption, it ultimately depends on whether the entire country is leading in scientific research. This is a relatively clear judgment. The United States has been the locomotive of world scientific and technological innovation since at least the 20th century. The United States has not only invented new products and technologies that are popular all over the world, such as automobiles, airplanes, electricity and household appliances, but also led the major revolutions of computers, the Internet and artificial intelligence. Looking at the Nobel Prize, the United States has the most Nobel Prize winners in the world, as many as 409. The United States' lead in science and technology has always been the goal of other countries to catch up. Although there are some problems in the US science and technology system and its state-funded scientific research, from a strategic perspective, the government's investment in scientific research is successful. These problems, such as excessive management fees or meaningless research projects, are obviously not solved by drastically cutting scientific research funds, but should be solved through legal due process according to specific circumstances.
If we generalize the public good of national defense, it will not only refer to the national defense force of a country, but also include the international alliance system. This system is a supplement to the national defense of a country, and it also requires the country to contribute to the system. Its function will not only enhance the national defense force of a country, but also increase the national defense force of its allies, thus forming a wider range of international security guarantees. This in turn reduces the threat of war to the country, because wars against other countries will inevitably spread to the country, just as Japan's invasion of China increased the threat to the security of the United States. Therefore, the support of the United States for NATO is also an international public good. Of course, the contribution share can be discussed, but Trump's threat to NATO countries to increase their capital by "withdrawing from the agreement" on the grounds that "NATO will not protect the United States" seems to be an overpriced bid. In fact, it seriously underestimates the value of NATO to the United States. That is, even if NATO only protects European countries, it is also a contribution to the security of the United States. This is obviously another manifestation of cash supremacy.
Another feature of Trump and Musk's "efficiency" is "rapidity", "large quantity" and "large scale". Because the Agency for International Development may have some problematic projects, they closed the agency on the first day, which was very fast; they immediately laid off 1,600 employees (Xiong Maoling, 2025), which was a large number, and thus saved $40 billion a year, which was a large scale. However, as mentioned earlier, the value of the public goods provided by the agency was not calculated here. This is very different from the 80% layoffs after Musk took over Twitter, because the reduction of private goods and services may also reduce his income at the same time, and will not affect the public environment of society. He did not consider the loss of public services when closing the Agency for International Development or other federal agencies, so "fast" and "big" are efficiency. Pursuing nominal and formal quantity and speed, regardless of the results. In fact, if the goal is to fight corruption, it is certainly not that the entire agency is corrupt, but that there will be some corruption in some parts. The correct approach is to expose and convict the corrupt part through legal due process. This procedure will certainly be slower, but it can ensure that the correct identification and judgment are made as much as possible, and be careful not to wrongly accuse anyone. If a wrong judgment is made, the damage to society and the law will be the greatest inefficiency. And Musk's "efficiency" obviously does not include this kind of fair justice.
From the time dimension, this "efficiency" is also more interested in the current situation rather than the situation after a long time, and is not interested in the results after several causal chains. For example, Trump continues to use the tariff stick to threaten other countries. Although there is a motivation to correct the tariff imbalance, it also goes beyond the scope of trade. For example, the reason for increasing taxes on China is fentanyl, Mexico is the immigration issue, and Canada is the energy issue. Although tariffs are used as a means of pressure, they appear to increase tariff revenue and reduce foreign competition for domestic enterprises, and there is also a cash effect. However, this algorithm does not take into account the situation after several causal chains, as well as the comprehensive effects. First, this will be retaliated by other countries and the two sides will retaliate against each other many times; second, because the United States has been issuing US dollars with an appropriate trade deficit - this is a product with extremely high profits, reducing the trade deficit will reduce the export of US dollars; third, tariffs will increase the prices of domestic consumer and investment products and worsen the country's business environment. According to experts, Trump's tariffs on aluminum may cause the United States to lose 100,000 jobs (Jiemian News, 2025). Finally, if global trade barriers are rampant, it will cause a global economic recession, and the United States will not be immune.
Trump's approach to the Russian-Ukrainian peace talks is also cash-based. Regardless of his position and attitude, judging from the actual effect of this plan, it seems to be the best plan at the moment, because it immediately ceases fire and no more casualties. However, in the long run, this is the worst plan, because it does not distinguish between the invaders and the invaded, and asking the invaded to accept humiliating conditions is an encouragement to the invaders, which will lead to more wars and more deaths. This has been proven by history, especially by the two world wars in modern times. In such a ceasefire plan, Trump did not forget to ask Ukraine to repay its favor with minerals. Similarly, Trump's coveting of the Panama Canal, Greenland and Canada also obviously has cash significance. He said that the Panama Canal charges too much for American ships, and once the canal is returned to the United States, there will be actual cash income (about US$5 billion/year); Greenland has rich resources such as oil, gas and rare earths, and Canada also has huge oil, gas and forest resources. The rental value of these resources is a huge source of income.
Therefore, we can roughly conclude that when Trump said "Make America Great Again", the "greatness" in his mind was "maximizing cash". Under certain conditions, cash maximization is not wrong. A society needs the provision of public goods, and also needs to have a long-term vision and do things that have no return at the moment but will be beneficial in the future. However, the operation of public institutions ultimately depends on funds. It's just that the state is different from a company. It can issue new debts to repay old debts and issue more banknotes to obtain additional seigniorage. The current cash gap will not cause the government to go bankrupt immediately. However, such buffer measures are also limited. Many years ago, there was a best-selling book called "Bankruptcy 1995: The Coming Collapse of America and How to Stop It", which predicted that if the US government is unable to pay the interest on its debts, it will face bankruptcy (Figgie and Swanson, 1992). This limits the US government's unlimited borrowing. By January 8, 2024, the US government's debt was as high as 34 trillion US dollars. The US government has raised the debt ceiling several times to avoid debt default. If it defaults, the US's credibility will plummet. Cash maximization means reducing cash expenditure, increasing cash income, reducing fiscal deficit and debt. This is reasonable to a certain extent and will be accepted by political elites.
"Making America Great Again", which takes "cash maximization" as its realistic goal, has another political advantage, which is that it will conquer the hearts of ordinary people. Generally speaking, ordinary people are clear and sensitive to current interests. The so-called "current interests" are interests that can be evaluated by the market, that is, cash. Ordinary people know whether prices are rising and whether their income is negatively affected, such as direct competition from foreign products and illegal immigrants competing for jobs. They lack a sense of the benefits brought by the Constitution, easily forgive the riots on January 6, and are very tolerant of lies. Therefore, they are the main force that made Trump come to power for the second time, and it cannot be said that they were deceived by Trump's lies. The reason why Trump's second term is more radical than his first term is that he was encouraged by this popular force in turn, and his behavior was more undisguised and highlighted his cash purpose, ignoring the Constitution and laws he should follow.
However, cash maximization is conditional under the size and structure of a country. It must ensure that reasonable public goods can still be provided, and it must be implemented within the constitutional framework. If reducing government cash expenditures comes at the cost of reducing necessary public goods, it will not be worth the loss. Because necessary public goods are the conditions for enterprises and the public to obtain cash normally, if the country is not safe, science is underdeveloped, infectious diseases are rampant, and so on, everyone's efforts to earn cash will also be affected. If the constitution is challenged and the executive power breaks through the restrictions, it will break the checks and balances of power and infringe on the rights of the people, which will shake the fundamental foundation of the prosperity of the United States - the civil rights system. This is the basic reason for the United States' leading and strong. However, this basic reason is generally "the supreme does not know and know". They play a role, but people are less directly linked to their own interests. Businessmen often attribute their success to their own wisdom and efforts, but they don't think about whether they have such conditions and opportunities in other countries?
Therefore, Trump's radical measures to achieve "cash maximization" are counterproductive, and cash has decreased instead. The recent sharp drop in the US stock market reflects people's concerns about economic recession. This is precisely the chain reaction brought about by Trump's tariff policy. The direct result of increasing tariffs is an increase in the corresponding prices (such as eggs). The retaliation of other countries has weakened the competitiveness of American products. The tariff measures that are inconsistent and start and stop have left people at a loss. Economists have long proposed the concept of "Trump recession", and Trump himself does not rule out the impact of tariffs on economic recession. On top of this is the deterioration of the entire public governance environment and institutional environment, as well as the deterioration of relations between the United States and other countries. The international economic order has been disturbed and people have no stable expectations. Many institutions have lowered their expectations for US economic growth; the Atlanta Federal Reserve estimates that the annualized growth rate of the US economy in the first quarter was -2.8% (Hong Kong Stock Market, 2025). This truly reflects that the public goods provided by the government are the conditions for social production. Once their supply is reduced or the supply system is destroyed, cash income is directly reduced. Therefore, our conclusion is that ignoring or underestimating public goods that are difficult to cash out and reducing related cash expenditures for the purpose of cash maximization can only reduce cash income more.
In fact, the appropriate goal of a country should not be "cash maximization" but "cash sustainability" and "value maximization". This is the social value under the premise of ensuring that the cash chain is not broken - including the sum of all personal interests and the maximization of the value of public goods. This is to minimize cash expenditure and increase cash income under the premise of complying with the Constitution and laws and without reducing the supply of necessary public goods. The main problem now is that fiscal expenditure always exceeds income and exceeds the appropriate scale. This problem has a long history. As early as the 1970s, economists such as Buchanan explored the mechanism in depth. Buchanan pointed out that under the democratic voting system, people tend to expand macroeconomic policies during economic depressions, and even if the government has a deficit, it can be made up by borrowing. People have a "fiscal illusion", that is, the debt will be repaid by future generations, and they will not bear it themselves, so they are more inclined to borrow the government to alleviate their current predicament. In addition, Keynesianism is popular, and the tradition of fiscal balance has been broken. This is an inherent drawback of the democratic system and cannot be overcome by itself.
In addition, although the United States has a history of isolationism, it has assumed more and more international obligations after World War II. When faced with international conflicts, nationalist sentiments and expansionist tendencies will support the launch of wars. For example, the Iraq War after 9/11 was supported by the vast majority of the people, and both houses of Congress passed the authorization to use force against Iraq with an overwhelming majority. Nobel Prize winner Stiglitz estimated that the total cost of this war (direct and indirect) was about 3 trillion US dollars (Stiglitz and Bilmes, 2008). Later, it was discovered that one of the reasons for launching the war, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was false intelligence. It seems that it is difficult for the US Congress to constrain the government to be cautious in going to war. In this way, it can be considered that the democratic system itself cannot constrain the government to maintain a balance in fiscal revenue and expenditure. The public tends to favor expansionary macroeconomic policies and expansionary foreign policies, which has led to a high debt of the United States, from 5.6 trillion US dollars in 2000 (34% of GDP) to 36.8 trillion US dollars in March 2025 (135% of GDP). Now the United States is on the verge of debt default, and more importantly, this trend is still expanding. If it is not stopped, the United States is doomed to bankruptcy.
Musk said, "I really don't want to see the United States go bankrupt." The "Government Efficiency Department" does have this as its main goal, but this "cash maximization" method will reduce cash and cannot solve the problem of US bankruptcy. In fact, many years ago, Buchanan proposed in his book "Democracy in Deficit" to curb the expansion of fiscal deficits within the constitutional framework, which is "to transform the principle of private financial responsibility into the code of conduct of the government" (1988, p. 178), that is, to amend the constitution and force the fiscal revenue and expenditure to balance. He also proposed a specific implementation method, namely, "when the gap exceeds the predetermined limit, the expenditure rate of all budgets will be reduced comprehensively." (p. 182) Compared with national bankruptcy, it is still easier to accept to cut annual expenditures. However, decades have passed, and the constitutional amendment aimed at "balancing the fiscal budget" has not been successful.
If Trump can resolve the "danger of national bankruptcy" that has become a problem for the United States, he can really become the "greatest" president. It's just that when he understands "greatness" as "cash maximization", he is further away from "greatness". What he did within two months of taking office made people see clearly that "maximizing cash" is a dead end. If he did not have other weaknesses, such as lust for power, contempt for the Constitution, prioritizing personal and party interests, self-righteousness, eagerness for quick success, whitewashing his mistakes..., he could have adjusted his approach. He should not have bypassed Congress and established a "Government Efficiency Department" to let Musk take "artificial intelligence" directly to government agencies to cut spending. Instead, he should have provided every member of Congress with a model for evaluating government budget projects so that they can have better judgment when voting on the budget. If he revisits Buchanan's suggestion and starts the constitutional amendment process of "budget balance", when this amendment is finally passed, future members of Congress will pick up the "budget balance model" in their hands when the government deficit exceeds the limit and pull the budget back to balance... then it will not be too late to talk about "greatness".