Something has been missing from the flood of commentary following the debate between US President Joe Biden and former US president Donald Trump. While voters’ judgements about a candidate’s personality and personal strengths are important, everyone should remember the famous dictum: “It’s the economy, stupid.” In the firehose of outright lies that Trump spewed throughout the debate, the most dangerous falsehoods concerned his and Biden’s respective economic-policy records.
Assessing a president’s management of the economy is always a tricky business, because many developments would have been set in motion by one’s predecessors.
Former US president Barack Obama had to deal with a deep recession because previous administrations had pursued financial deregulation and failed to head off the crisis that erupted in the fall of 2008.
Then, with congressional Republicans tying the Obama administration’s hands and calling for belt tightening, the country was deprived of the kinds of fiscal policies that might have brought the economy out of the Great Recession faster. By the time the economy was finally on the mend, Obama was on his way out, and Trump was on his way in.
Trump did not hesitate to claim credit for the growth that ensued, but while he and congressional Republicans slashed taxes for corporations and billionaires, the promised surge of investment never materialized. Instead, there was a wave of stock buybacks, which are on track to exceed US$1 trillion next year.
Although Trump cannot be blamed for the COVID-19 pandemic, he certainly bears responsibility for an inadequate response that left the US with a death toll far higher than that of other advanced economies. While the virus disproportionately claimed the lives of the elderly, it also cut into the workforce, and those losses contributed to the work shortages and inflation that Biden inherited.
Biden’s own economic record has been impressive. Immediately after taking office, he secured passage of the American Rescue Plan, which made the country’s recovery from the pandemic stronger than that of any other advanced country. Then came the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which provided funding to start repairing crucial elements of the US economy after a half-century of neglect.
The next year, Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which launched a new era of industrial policy that would ensure the economy’s resilience and competitiveness (a sharp break from the fragility that marked the preceding neoliberal era). With the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the US finally joined the international community in fighting climate change and investing in the technologies of the future.
In addition to providing economic insurance against the possibility of a stubborn and ever-evolving virus, the American Rescue Plan nearly halved the rate of childhood poverty in the space of a year — but it also was blamed (including by some Democrats) for the subsequent inflation.
That charge simply does not hold water. There was no excessive aggregate demand from the American Rescue Plan, at least not of a magnitude that could account for the level of inflation. Most of the blame lay with pandemic and war-induced supply-side interruptions and shifts in demand.
Insofar as Biden could combat these, he did so: he tapped the US’ Strategic Petroleum Reserve to address oil shortages and worked to relieve bottlenecks at US ports.
Even more relevant to this election is what lies ahead. Careful economic modeling has shown that Trump’s proposals would cause higher inflation — in spite of lower growth — and greater inequality.
For starters, Trump would raise tariffs, and the costs would mostly be passed on to US consumers. Trump assumes, contrary to basic economics, that China would simply lower its prices to offset the tariffs. If it did that, no US jobs would be saved (consistency has never been one of Trump’s strengths).
Moreover, Trump would curtail immigration, which would make the labor market tighter and increase the risk of labor shortages in some sectors. He would also increase the deficit, the effects of which might induce a worried US Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, thereby decreasing investment in housing, raising rents and housing costs (a major source of today’s inflation) even further.
In addition to slowing growth by dampening investment, higher interest rates would also push up the exchange rate, making US exports less competitive. US exports would suffer from higher-cost inputs owing to higher tariffs, and the retaliation they would provoke.
We already know that the 2017 corporate tax cuts did not stimulate much investment, and that most of the benefits went to the rich and to foreigners (who own large shares of US corporations). The additional tax cuts that Trump is promising are not likely to do any better, but they would almost certainly increase deficits and inequality.
Of course, there is considerable complexity in modeling these effects. It is unclear how fast or forcefully the Fed would respond to tariff-induced inflation, but its economists obviously would see the problem coming.
Would they be tempted to nip it in the bud by hiking interest rates early? Would Trump then break with institutional norms by trying to fire the Fed chair? How would the markets (here and abroad) respond to this new era of uncertainty and chaos?
The longer-run prognosis is clearer — and worse. The US owes much of its economic success in the past few years to its technological prowess, which rests on solid scientific foundations. Yet Trump would continue attacking universities and demanding massive cutbacks in research and development expenditures.
The only reason such cuts were not made during his previous term is that he did not have his party completely in tow. Now, he does.
Similarly, even though the US population is aging, Trump would allow the workforce to shrink by curtailing immigration. Although economists have emphasized the importance of the rule of law for economic growth, Trump, a convicted felon, is not exactly known for his adherence to it.
Thus, on the question of who would be better for the economy — Trump or Biden (or any Democrat who might replace him, should he drop out) — there is simply no debate.
Joseph Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank and former chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, is a university professor at Columbia University, a Nobel laureate in economics and the author, most recently, of The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
RSS