Trump vs. Harris: Economic Policies and Global Impact

The US Economy's Global Significance

The United States economy holds immense importance on the global stage. As the world's largest economy, accounting for approximately 25% of global GDP, the US plays a pivotal role in shaping international economic trends. Additionally, its position as the second-largest trading nation and the dominance of the US dollar as the world's leading reserve currency further amplify its global economic influence.

Current Economic Landscape

The US economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience in the post-pandemic era. A robust job market and strong consumer spending have contributed to a more forceful and rapid economic recovery compared to other advanced economies. Recent interest rate cuts and anticipated future reductions suggest that the next president will likely benefit from more favorable borrowing conditions.

However, it's important to note that the US is still grappling with elevated price levels, and many Americans perceive the economy to be performing worse than it actually is. This disconnect between economic indicators and public sentiment adds an intriguing dimension to the upcoming presidential election.

Trump vs. Harris: Economic Management

Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have positioned themselves as superior economic managers. However, their approaches and track records differ significantly.

Trump's Economic Legacy

Donald Trump's previous administration was marked by a chaotic approach to policymaking, which created uncertainty in the business community. This unpredictability had tangible effects on investment and corporate decision-making. Trump's tendency to announce new policies abruptly, often catching his own staff off guard, led to a climate of instability.

The impact of this unpredictability on the economy should not be underestimated. When companies are unsure about the stability of current policies or the potential for sudden changes, they tend to adopt a more cautious approach, often choosing to hold onto their capital rather than invest. This hesitancy can have far-reaching consequences, particularly in areas such as foreign investment and trade.

Trump's Trade Policies

Despite his reputation for unpredictability, Trump has maintained a relatively consistent stance on tariffs. During his first term, he initiated a trade war that imposed tariffs on over $300 billion worth of Chinese goods. His approach to trade policy is rooted in the notion of America as a victim of unfair foreign practices that undermine domestic manufacturing and compromise national security.

For his potential second term, Trump has proposed even more aggressive measures:

1. A blanket 10% tariff on all foreign goods entering the US
2. A 60% or higher tariff specifically targeting Chinese imports
3. A 100% tariff on imported cars, which he claims would protect the domestic auto industry

These proposals reflect Trump's "America First" ideology and his belief in using tariffs as a tool to reshape global trade dynamics in favor of the United States.

Harris's Stance on Trade

In contrast, Kamala Harris has vocally opposed the idea of imposing duties on all foreign goods entering the US. During her first debate with Donald Trump and throughout her campaign, Harris has consistently criticized Trump's tariff proposals.

Harris argues that implementing a 10% tariff on all imported goods would increase the cost of everyday expenses for American families, including gasoline, groceries, and clothing. She has cited the opinions of independent economists and Nobel Prize-winning experts who have expressed deep concern about the potential negative impacts of Trump's economic policies.

Expert Opinions on Tariffs

Economists generally agree that broad-based tariffs can have unintended consequences. Steve Cobb, an economist at the University of North Texas, points out that approximately one-third of US imports are intermediate products used in the production of goods sold domestically and abroad. Imposing tariffs on these imports would raise production costs for US manufacturers, potentially making them less competitive in global markets and increasing prices for domestic consumers.

The Nuances of Trade Policy

While Harris has criticized Trump's tariff proposals, it's important to note that the current Biden-Harris administration has maintained many of the Trump-era tariffs on Chinese products and even introduced new ones. This suggests that a Harris administration might not completely abandon the use of tariffs as a policy tool.

Some of the new tariffs implemented by the Biden-Harris administration include:

1. Increased tariffs on solar cells and electric cars from China
2. New tariffs on products like syringes
3. Tariffs designed to protect specific US industries, such as car manufacturing in Michigan, semiconductor plants in Arizona, and the steel industry in Pennsylvania

These policies indicate that both Republican and Democratic administrations recognize the strategic importance of using trade measures to protect and promote domestic industries, particularly in sectors deemed crucial for national security or economic competitiveness.

Impact on American Businesses

The effects of these tariff policies are not uniform across all American businesses. While some companies benefit from increased protection against foreign competition, others face challenges, especially those with manufacturing operations in China or those relying heavily on imported components.

For example, Thomas Shaw, who heads a syringe manufacturing company in Texas with operations in China, acknowledges the potential benefits of tariffs in creating domestic competition and jobs. However, he emphasizes the importance of implementing such policies thoughtfully, allowing companies sufficient time to adjust their operations and potentially relocate manufacturing to the US.

The China Factor in US Trade Policy

Regardless of which candidate wins the presidency, US trade policy towards China is likely to remain a critical focus. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have taken actions to protect US interests in key industries such as semiconductors, batteries, electric vehicles, and critical minerals, citing national security concerns and the need for supply chain resilience.

The main difference between the two approaches lies in their execution:

1. Trump's approach is often described as a "meat cleaver" strategy, favoring broad, aggressive measures.
2. The Biden-Harris approach is characterized as more of a "scalpel" strategy, employing targeted interventions in specific sectors.

However, there is a bipartisan consensus on the need to address China's economic practices and protect US interests, suggesting that significant changes in this aspect of trade policy are unlikely, regardless of the election outcome.

Global Implications of US Trade Policies

The trade policies adopted by the next US president will have far-reaching consequences for the global economy. For instance, if Trump were to implement his proposed 20% tariff on all goods from countries trading with the United States, including European nations, it could trigger a series of retaliatory measures.

This scenario could lead to:

1. Disruptions in global supply chains
2. Increased costs for goods across the board
3. Potential economic slowdowns in countries heavily reliant on trade with the US
4. Strain on international economic relationships and institutions

The ripple effects of such policies would be felt not just by Americans but by consumers and businesses worldwide, underscoring the interconnected nature of the global economy and the outsized influence of US economic decisions.

Energy Policy: A Key Battleground

Energy policy has emerged as another crucial issue in the 2024 presidential election, with both candidates taking distinct positions that could significantly impact the US and global energy landscape.

Harris's Evolving Stance on Fracking

Kamala Harris's position on fracking has evolved over time. During the 2020 election campaign, she initially expressed support for banning fracking. However, she has since reversed this stance and now supports the practice. This shift aligns her more closely with the current administration's energy policy, which has overseen record levels of oil and natural gas production in the United States.

Trump's "Drill Baby Drill" Approach

Donald Trump has consistently advocated for an aggressive expansion of fossil fuel production, encapsulated in his "drill baby drill" slogan. His energy policy focuses on maximizing domestic oil and gas production, with less emphasis on environmental concerns or the transition to renewable energy sources.

The Fracking Factor

Fracking has played a pivotal role in transforming the US energy landscape:

1. The US has become the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas
2. Production levels rose sharply under the Biden administration
3. The US is now the world's largest exporter of natural gas, supplying about half of Europe's LNG imports

Given the economic importance of fracking, it's unlikely that either candidate would support an outright ban on the practice. However, their approaches to regulating and promoting the industry may differ significantly.

The Marcellus Shale Formation

The Marcellus Shale formation exemplifies the potential and challenges of US energy production. Spanning approximately 234,000 square kilometers, this geologic formation is estimated to contain 97 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas. The development of this resource has significant implications for US energy independence and export capabilities.

Industry Perspectives

Dave Callahan, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, has expressed concerns about some Biden-era policies, such as the freeze on new liquefied natural gas export permits due to environmental concerns. The industry is looking for concrete policy proposals from both candidates to understand how they plan to shape the future of US energy production and use.

Environmental and Community Concerns

While fracking has boosted US energy production, it has also raised environmental and health concerns in communities where it occurs. Lois Bower-Bjornson, an environmental protection advocate in Pennsylvania, highlights issues such as:

1. Potential health impacts on local residents, including children
2. Mental well-being of communities near fracking sites
3. Decreased property values
4. Air and water contamination

Bower-Bjornson advocates for increased setback distances between new gas wells and buildings, a measure that could impact future production without entirely halting the industry.

Balancing Energy Production and Environmental Concerns

The approach to balancing energy production with environmental and social concerns is likely to differ significantly between a Trump and a Harris administration:

1. A Harris administration would likely continue the Biden administration's efforts to balance climate action and energy security. This includes supporting both fossil fuel production and significant investments in clean energy, as exemplified by the Inflation Reduction Act.

2. A Trump administration would likely prioritize energy independence and production expansion with less emphasis on environmental regulations or clean energy initiatives. Trump has stated his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, as he did during his first term.

Global Implications of US Energy Policy

The energy policies of the next US president will have significant global implications:

1. Climate change mitigation efforts: A withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under Trump could hinder global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change.

2. Energy markets: Increased US production could affect global oil and gas prices and alter energy trade patterns.

3. Geopolitics: US energy policy can influence its relationships with both allies and competitors, particularly in regions like Europe that rely heavily on US natural gas exports.

4. Clean energy transition: The level of US investment and support for renewable energy technologies could impact the pace of the global energy transition.

Conclusion: Divergent Visions, Global Consequences

While Trump and Harris may share some similarities in their positions on issues like fracking, their overall approaches to economic and energy policy differ significantly:

1. Trade Policy:

   • Harris is likely to maintain good trading relations with allies while still protecting key US industries.
   • Trump is expected to pursue a more aggressive, protectionist approach, potentially straining international economic relationships.

2. Energy Policy:

   • Both candidates are likely to support an "all of the above" energy strategy, but with different emphases:
     • Harris may prioritize balancing fossil fuel production with clean energy initiatives and environmental concerns.
     • Trump is expected to focus more heavily on expanding fossil fuel production and exports.

3. International Cooperation:

   • Harris is more likely to engage in multilateral efforts on issues like climate change and energy transition.
   • Trump has indicated a preference for unilateral action and skepticism towards international agreements.

The 2024 US presidential election presents a choice between two distinct visions for America's economic and energy future. The outcome will not only shape the US economy but will have far-reaching consequences for global trade, energy markets, and efforts to address climate change.

As the election approaches, it's crucial for voters, policymakers, and global observers to closely examine the candidates' proposals and their potential impacts. The interconnected nature of the global economy means that decisions made in Washington will reverberate around the world, affecting everything from consumer prices to international efforts to combat climate change.

Ultimately, the choice between Trump and Harris represents more than just a decision about domestic US policy. It's a choice that will help determine the trajectory of the global economy and the world's approach to some of the most pressing challenges of our time.

Article created from: https://youtu.be/x72shIS0YmU?si=RB3IkHjAxCWf4Rc7