Although both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s policies are expected to increase US deficits and debt over the next decade, the consequences of Trump’s proposed tariffs threaten to cause far more damage. At a time of heightened uncertainty, the United States needs a president who genuinely cares about ordinary people.
ITHACA – The outcome of November’s US presidential election will have profound consequences for democracies worldwide and for geopolitical flashpoints like Ukraine, the Middle East, and Taiwan. But the potential economic fallout could be equally far-reaching. In today’s interconnected global economy, with supply chains stretching across continents, policy missteps in the United States could reverberate around the world, fueling trade wars, inflation, and unemployment.
Election campaigns are rarely conducive to sound policymaking, as candidates often make ambitious promises without considering their feasibility. This is especially true of the 2024 election, with studies suggesting that both Democratic and Republican policies are likely to increase the deficit over the next decade.
The focus on short-term fixes and immediate relief could have a significant impact on America’s long-term fiscal health. According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic policies could raise the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion by 2034. While alarming, this figure pales in comparison to the potential impact of former President Donald Trump’s proposed policies, which are expected to increase the deficit by $5.8 trillion over the same period.
Harris and President Joe Biden have been heavily criticized for presiding over the highest inflation in 40 years. But inflation has fallen dramatically since peaking in June 2022, prompting the Federal Reserve to cut its policy interest rate by 50 basis points last week. Despite this, Trump continues to attack the Biden administration over price increases, promising to tame inflation by, for example, expanding domestic oil drilling.
While macroeconomic experts are not always right when it comes to potential policy outcomes, there are times when their concerns are well-founded. Trump’s economic proposals are a case in point.
Consider Trump’s proposed tariffs. If elected, he plans to impose a 10% tariff on all imports to the US and a 60% tariff on Chinese goods. He also aims to curb outsourcing to foreign producers, promising to “build American, buy American, and hire American” and threatening to “punish those who ship jobs and factories overseas or to places like Mexico.”
Watch our Climate Week NYC 2024 event now to hear speakers from across the globe – including Mia Amor Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados; Gabriel Boric, President of Chile; Jiwoh Abdulai, Minister of Environment and Climate Change of Sierra Leone; and Maisa Rojas Corradi, Minister of the Environment of Chile – discuss climate leadership, development finance, and more.
Watch Now
Although targeted tariffs can sometimes make economic sense, applying them across the board would inevitably drive up costs and create inefficiencies. Discouraging outsourcing may appear beneficial, but blocking US companies from accessing cheap labor abroad would make American products less competitive globally, harming the economy and reducing demand for labor in the long run.
The current debate about outsourcing is often framed as a battle between workers in wealthy countries and those in developing economies. But this overlooks the fact that outsourcing is fundamentally a labor-versus-capital issue. Every time a job is moved overseas, profits increase, benefiting owners while workers bear the costs. The solution is to tax capital and redirect some of the revenue to workers without sacrificing competitiveness. Yet Trump, who has pledged to cut corporate taxes, has embraced the opposite approach.
Argentina’s experience should serve as a cautionary tale about the threat that Trump’s policies pose to America’s economic prospects. In the early twentieth century, Argentina experienced remarkable growth, with some even predicting that it would eventually surpass the US economically. But in 1930, José Félix Uriburu launched a military coup and declared himself president. Backed by the far-right Nacionalistas, he restricted immigration and nearly doubled tariffs by 1933. Consequently, Argentina’s economy stagnated, and its hopes of rivaling the US were dashed.
To be sure, macroeconomic policymaking is inherently fraught with error and uncertainty. This is why simple correlations, such as pointing out that economic indicator Y worsened under President X, are misleading and largely irrelevant. Political leaders are not expected to know everything; they are expected to have empathy for ordinary people and base their decisions on sound reasoning and the best available scientific knowledge.
Trump falls far short of this ideal. His lack of empathy is evident in his dehumanizing rhetoric, especially his claims that migrants are “poisoning the blood” of the country. Throughout his career, he has consistently shown disdain toward the disadvantaged.
At a time of rising geopolitical tensions and economic turmoil, the US needs a president who may not have all the answers to the world’s problems but genuinely cares about ordinary people and approaches policy challenges with empathy, integrity, and humility. Only one candidate fits the bill.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
A significant increase in financing, at both the national and international levels, is vital to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by the 2030 deadline. To this end, the international community must both deliver debt relief to developing countries and expand their access to affordable finance.
proposes ways to reduce low-income countries’ debts and expand their access to affordable finance.
Anne-Marie Slaughter
urges the EU to begin preparations for a prolonged, but not permanent, division of Ukraine, considers the prospect of “democratic artificial intelligence,” describes necessary reforms to US electoral systems, and more.
ITHACA – The outcome of November’s US presidential election will have profound consequences for democracies worldwide and for geopolitical flashpoints like Ukraine, the Middle East, and Taiwan. But the potential economic fallout could be equally far-reaching. In today’s interconnected global economy, with supply chains stretching across continents, policy missteps in the United States could reverberate around the world, fueling trade wars, inflation, and unemployment.
Election campaigns are rarely conducive to sound policymaking, as candidates often make ambitious promises without considering their feasibility. This is especially true of the 2024 election, with studies suggesting that both Democratic and Republican policies are likely to increase the deficit over the next decade.
The focus on short-term fixes and immediate relief could have a significant impact on America’s long-term fiscal health. According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic policies could raise the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion by 2034. While alarming, this figure pales in comparison to the potential impact of former President Donald Trump’s proposed policies, which are expected to increase the deficit by $5.8 trillion over the same period.
Harris and President Joe Biden have been heavily criticized for presiding over the highest inflation in 40 years. But inflation has fallen dramatically since peaking in June 2022, prompting the Federal Reserve to cut its policy interest rate by 50 basis points last week. Despite this, Trump continues to attack the Biden administration over price increases, promising to tame inflation by, for example, expanding domestic oil drilling.
While macroeconomic experts are not always right when it comes to potential policy outcomes, there are times when their concerns are well-founded. Trump’s economic proposals are a case in point.
Consider Trump’s proposed tariffs. If elected, he plans to impose a 10% tariff on all imports to the US and a 60% tariff on Chinese goods. He also aims to curb outsourcing to foreign producers, promising to “build American, buy American, and hire American” and threatening to “punish those who ship jobs and factories overseas or to places like Mexico.”
PS Events: Climate Week NYC 2024
Watch our Climate Week NYC 2024 event now to hear speakers from across the globe – including Mia Amor Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados; Gabriel Boric, President of Chile; Jiwoh Abdulai, Minister of Environment and Climate Change of Sierra Leone; and Maisa Rojas Corradi, Minister of the Environment of Chile – discuss climate leadership, development finance, and more.
Watch Now
Although targeted tariffs can sometimes make economic sense, applying them across the board would inevitably drive up costs and create inefficiencies. Discouraging outsourcing may appear beneficial, but blocking US companies from accessing cheap labor abroad would make American products less competitive globally, harming the economy and reducing demand for labor in the long run.
The current debate about outsourcing is often framed as a battle between workers in wealthy countries and those in developing economies. But this overlooks the fact that outsourcing is fundamentally a labor-versus-capital issue. Every time a job is moved overseas, profits increase, benefiting owners while workers bear the costs. The solution is to tax capital and redirect some of the revenue to workers without sacrificing competitiveness. Yet Trump, who has pledged to cut corporate taxes, has embraced the opposite approach.
Argentina’s experience should serve as a cautionary tale about the threat that Trump’s policies pose to America’s economic prospects. In the early twentieth century, Argentina experienced remarkable growth, with some even predicting that it would eventually surpass the US economically. But in 1930, José Félix Uriburu launched a military coup and declared himself president. Backed by the far-right Nacionalistas, he restricted immigration and nearly doubled tariffs by 1933. Consequently, Argentina’s economy stagnated, and its hopes of rivaling the US were dashed.
To be sure, macroeconomic policymaking is inherently fraught with error and uncertainty. This is why simple correlations, such as pointing out that economic indicator Y worsened under President X, are misleading and largely irrelevant. Political leaders are not expected to know everything; they are expected to have empathy for ordinary people and base their decisions on sound reasoning and the best available scientific knowledge.
Trump falls far short of this ideal. His lack of empathy is evident in his dehumanizing rhetoric, especially his claims that migrants are “poisoning the blood” of the country. Throughout his career, he has consistently shown disdain toward the disadvantaged.
At a time of rising geopolitical tensions and economic turmoil, the US needs a president who may not have all the answers to the world’s problems but genuinely cares about ordinary people and approaches policy challenges with empathy, integrity, and humility. Only one candidate fits the bill.