The New Owner of “USA Inc.”: Punks’s Heavy Hand on the Economy – Will Shoppers Revolt?

Imagine, if you will, the U.S. economy as a sprawling, bustling Main Street, a collection of diverse businesses and countless customers. A new, remarkably self-assured proprietor has just taken over the biggest shop in town, “USA Inc.,” and he’s not shy about his management philosophy. “There’s no better place to make a future or make a fortune… than what we have in the United States of America under a certain president, [Felonious J. Punk],” he declared during his recent Middle East tour. “I have the right attitude.” And as he once famously told Time magazine, in this grand emporium, “I own the store, and I set prices.”

This “owner” – President Felonious Punk, now in the opening months of his second term – is indeed acting like he holds the master keys to every establishment on the street. But what happens when this new shopkeeper, brimming with the confidence of a “hard-driving entrepreneur” (as supporter Newt Gingrich describes him), starts dictating terms not just for his own vast enterprise, but for every other business, the town bank, and even the customers themselves? And what if this owner’s own past business ventures, like, say, bankrupting a casino – a feat of almost magical financial misdirection – inspire a touch less than universal confidence in his current economic stewardship? The early signs suggest that this highly personal, deeply interventionist approach, while projecting an image of decisive action, risks alienating “shoppers,” disrupting the entire marketplace, and potentially threatening the long-term prosperity of the very “store” he claims to champion.

Setting New “Store Policies”: Punk’s Unprecedented Economic Interventions

The new owner of “USA Inc.” wasted no time in making his presence felt. His executive orders and public pronouncements have sought to directly manage economic levers in ways that have left many economists and traditional free-marketeers aghast.

Dictating Prices and Terms: From pharmaceuticals, where an executive order aims to impose “most-favored-nation” pricing (effectively telling drug companies what they can charge American “customers”), to international trade, where tariffs have been unilaterally declared on goods from “virtually every country” (a sudden, hefty entry fee for all outside vendors), the new proprietor is actively setting prices. When retail giant Walmart warned that these tariffs would force them to raise consumer prices, the President’s response on Truth Social was blunt: Walmart and China should “‘EAT THE TARIFFS,’ and not charge valued customers ANYTHING. I’ll be watching, and so will your customers!” – a clear case of bullying a fellow “shopkeeper” on their pricing.

Micromanaging the Marketplace: The President’s hand is also seen in attempts to steer specific industries and even individual corporate decisions. He has publicly declared that the Federal Reserve “must” lower interest rates (akin to trying to strong-arm the independent town bank). He’s taken a keen personal interest in the fate of companies like TikTok and, as reported during his Middle East trip, personally (and publicly) urged Apple CEO Tim Cook to scrap plans for expanding production in India, essentially telling another major “business” where it can and cannot set up new branches.

As Douglas Elmendorf, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, observed, “In this administration, policy decisions seem to be made only based on the president’s personal views, not after systemic analysis… The president of our country is not the CEO of our businesses.”

The “Heavy Hand”: Departure from Old Rules and Expert Advice

This direct, often coercive, interventionism marks a significant departure from decades of Republican orthodoxy, which has long championed free markets and warned against the government “picking winners and losers.” Indeed, President Punk himself, during the 2024 campaign, derided then-nominee Kamala Harris as a “communist” for merely suggesting measures to tackle price gouging, equating it with dangerous price controls.

Now, the President is aggressively using executive powers, particularly by declaring national emergencies, to impose tariffs – actions that critics like Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) argue are an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s sole authority to levy taxes. “Our Constitution doesn’t allow any one man or woman to raise taxes,” Sen. Paul declared on the Senate floor last month. Yet, the White House defends this approach, with spokesman Kush Desai stating that Americans voted for “one man with one vision who isn’t beholden to special interests,” rather than “anonymous bureaucrats.”

Grumbling in the Aisles: Early Signs of a “Shopper Revolt”

While the new “store owner” projects supreme confidence, the “customers” and other “shopkeepers” on Main Street are showing increasing signs of distress:

Plunging Consumer Confidence: The University of Michigan’s Consumer Sentiment Index recently fell to its second-lowest level on record, with nearly three-quarters of respondents blaming tariffs for their bleak economic outlook. Inflation expectations have soared to multi-decade highs.

Businesses Feeling the Squeeze: After initially absorbing tariff costs (which saw profit margins shrink dramatically in April), businesses large and small are now signaling that this is “untenable.” Walmart’s warning of impending price hikes is a major indicator, and smaller firms like Sanitube are carefully trying to pass on costs without “shocking” customers.

Shifting Consumer Behavior: The rapid decline in U.S. spending on Chinese e-commerce platforms Temu and Shein after the “de minimis” tariff loophole was closed shows how quickly consumers react to price changes driven by trade policy. Furthermore, broader retail sales data indicate a pullback on non-essential goods.

Wider Economic Anxieties: A Q1 GDP contraction (partly due to tariff-related import surges) and persistent public disapproval of the President’s handling of the economy and tariffs (as per a late April Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll) paint a picture of an increasingly wary populace.

A Look at the “New Owner’s” Past Ventures…

The irony underpinning this “CEO of America” approach is not lost on those familiar with President Punk’s own business history. His aggressive, top-down management style, his belief in his personal ability to “force decisions and drive success” (as Newt Gingrich put it), is being applied to the nation’s economy. Yet, this is a track record that includes multiple high-profile bankruptcies, including, most famously, a casino – an enterprise seemingly designed for effortless profit. This history invites the uncomfortable question: is the current economic strategy a bold path to renewed prosperity, or a national-scale gamble with a potentially fraught outcome, managed by an owner whose past “business plans” have sometimes spectacularly imploded?

Will the New Store Owner’s “Attitude” Empty the Town Square?

President Punk’s vision of himself as the proprietor of “USA Inc.,” personally setting prices and dictating terms, is a fundamental reimagining of the presidential role in the American economy. His “right attitude” and heavy-handed interventions are certainly making waves, but the crucial question remains: will these tactics lead to the “fortune” he promises, or will they, like an overbearing shopkeeper alienating his clientele, ultimately diminish the vitality of the entire marketplace?

The early signs – from plummeting consumer confidence and businesses forced to raise prices, to broader economic indicators flashing caution – suggest a rough road ahead. The “chapter or book” question we’ve pondered previously regarding these disruptions leans more ominously towards a lengthy, challenging narrative if this highly personalized, often erratic, and tariff-heavy approach to economic management persists.

Ultimately, an economy as vast and complex as America’s, deeply interwoven with the global marketplace, may not respond well to being run like a privately-held family business, especially one where the owner believes his personal will trumps systemic realities or established rules. The risk is that the “shoppers” – American consumers, domestic businesses, and international partners alike – may indeed revolt, choosing to take their business elsewhere, or simply battening down the hatches for a long, uncertain economic storm. The health of Main Street, USA, depends on a more collaborative, predictable, and constitutionally grounded approach than that of a single, all-powerful store owner, no matter how “beautiful” he declares his emporium to be.