As with Trump's attempt to destabilize the independence of the US central bank, it shouldn't be expected that populist leaders' attempts to manipulate institutions by political means will result in increased public welfare. The tax cut for the wealthy, which Trump marketed as a "big, beautiful law," is a prime example. We've talked so much about Trump's foreign trade moves that it's almost as if his tweets alone determine the global economy. But foreign trade is only a part of this new economic order. Perhaps not even the most important part. The shift is so profound that we're not watching a TV series where we're constantly wondering, "Will the US win or will China?"

At the recent Jackson Hole meetings, Powell spoke under months of threats from Trump. As is well known, Trump threatened to fire Powell if he didn't lower interest rates. For Trump, interest rates were like the price of coffee: "The lower the better." The threat of dismissal isn't limited to Powell. Fed Board Member Lisa Cook, who is facing allegations of forging mortgage application documents, is also under threat. When Powell signaled a rate cut at the Jackson Hole meeting, Wall Street erupted into a festive atmosphere, but the festivities also fueled the debate over an "Independent Central Bank." This debate isn't uncommon in America, but it's not unfamiliar to us: For a while, tensions between politicians and central banks were a staple of our morning television schedules.

Independent central banking in the US has been considered the bible of the financial system since 1951. When neoliberalism became the norm in the 1980s, the rule shifted to: "Let technocrats set policy, and let politicians stay out of it." Fine... but this means the public doesn't have much say. The technocrats' decision-making focus is undoubtedly not on what to do with my meager savings. They're looking at vast funds. When Wall Street sneezes, the world catches the flu; when I cough, no one even notices. Let's recall the 2008 crisis: governments bailed out financial institutions too large to be allowed to fail. But for employees, the situation was different. While it was said of banks, "If they fail, the world fails," workers who couldn't pay their mortgages were told, "The door is open. Turn around and leave." The problem stemmed not from the malicious intent of technocrats, but from the very nature of the system. You may remember the protests; when people were forced out of their homes, unemployment reached 25 percent, and wages were slashed, massive protests erupted in many countries, bringing down governments.

Today, we see the same discontent not in street protests, but at the ballot boxes: this is the age of populist leaders. As improving the welfare of working people loses its place among economic policy priorities, growing public discontent is compounded by populists' rhetoric of anti-elite rhetoric. In other words, the problem isn't Trumpism, but the economic policies that make these leaders the lesser of two evils. But the populists' anti-elite rhetoric remains merely rhetorical. As with Trump's skepticism of the US central bank's independence, we shouldn't expect populist leaders' attempts to subordinate institutions to political control to increase public welfare. Trump's "big, beautiful law," which brought tax cuts to the wealthy and touted as a "great law," is an example of this.

A more balanced distribution of income and wealth can only be achieved through policies that span the long term. Politicians, however, lack such patience. Their horizons are limited to the next election. The consensus within the business world and academia that economic policy requires expertise and should therefore be left to technocrats, not politicians, holds true in Turkey as well. The opposition has long adhered to this perspective. Today, the opposition, adhering to this consensus, goes no further than declaring, "Problems can't be solved with monetary policy alone."

However, neither is populism the antidote to neoliberalism, nor is a return to neoliberalism the antidote to populism. The key is to rebalance the interests of business and the public. But to do this without dragging the economy into crisis, as was the case in the 1970s. Instead of attacking the independence of institutions, it's crucial to correctly prioritize them. And when we consider the climate crisis, we see that we have no other choice. Technology is one advantage. Today's technologies make it easier to balance participatory institutions, social policy, and the welfare state with competitiveness. The solution isn't to rehash old debates; it's to find new recipes. Economic policy also needs some creative culinary expertise.