CNN: 23 Nobel Prize-winning economists call Harris’ economic plan ‘vastly superior’ to Trump’s
More than half of the living US recipients of the Nobel Prize for economics signed a letter that called Vice President Kamala Harris’ economic agenda “vastly superior” to the plans laid out by former President Donald Trump.
Twenty-three Nobel Prize-winning economists signed onto the letter, including two of the three most recent recipients.
“While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that, overall, Harris’ economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump,” the economists write in the letter obtained by CNN.
Here’s a reasonable case that might conflict with the views of these Nobel Prize-winning economists regarding Kamala Harris’s economic agenda being “vastly superior” to Donald Trump’s plans:
1. Economic Recovery and Job Creation:
Trump’s Record: During Trump’s term, the unemployment rate dropped to record lows, especially for minority groups. This could suggest that his policies, including tax cuts and deregulation, spurred job growth. Critics might argue that a return to policies resembling Trump’s could foster similar job growth, especially if coupled with infrastructure spending.
2. Inflation Control:
Trump’s Approach: Trump’s administration ended with pre-COVID inflation rates around 2%, considered by many to be near-ideal. His proposed tariffs, while criticized for potential price increases, could be seen as a negotiation tactic to rebalance trade deficits, potentially lowering prices in the long term if reciprocal trade deals are secured.
3. Fiscal Responsibility:
Deficit and Debt: While Trump’s tax cuts increased the deficit, supporters might argue that this was an investment in economic growth. The economic effects could be seen as a trade-off for more immediate economic stimulus, potentially leading to higher long-term revenues if economic growth outpaces debt increases.
4. Regulation and Business Environment:
Deregulation: Trump’s approach to reducing regulations was seen as beneficial for businesses, which could lead to increased investment, innovation, and job creation. Advocates might argue that a less regulated environment allows businesses to thrive without the burden of what they perceive as excessive government oversight, potentially leading to faster economic recovery and growth.
5. Trade Policies:
Negotiation Stance: Trump’s aggressive trade negotiations aimed at redefining global trade rules might be viewed as a strategy to protect domestic industries and reduce trade deficits. While this approach was contentious, supporters could argue it puts American interests first, possibly leading to stronger domestic manufacturing and job security.
6. Energy Policy:
Energy Independence: Trump’s push towards energy independence through fossil fuels had economic benefits in terms of job creation in the oil and gas sectors and lower energy prices for consumers. Critics of Harris’s green initiatives might point out the high initial costs and potential job losses in transitioning industries, arguing for a more balanced approach to energy that includes all viable options.
7. Tax Policy:
Simplification and Cuts: Trump’s tax cuts were criticized for favoring the wealthy, but they also reduced rates for many middle-income earners. Proponents might argue that these cuts incentivize investment, boost consumer spending, and encourage repatriation of overseas profits, potentially stimulating economic growth more effectively than raising taxes.
8. Long-term Economic Vision:
Growth vs. Redistribution: While Harris’s agenda might focus on social justice and equality, critics could argue that Trump’s policies aimed more directly at economic growth. If economic growth is significantly robust, it could lead to a rising tide lifting all boats, reducing the need for as much government intervention in redistribution.
Conclusion:
The case against labeling Harris’s economic agenda as “vastly superior” might hinge on questioning the immediate economic impacts of deregulation, tax policy, energy strategy, and trade negotiations. Critics could argue that while short-term economic pain might accompany Trump’s policies, the long-term benefits of a deregulated, energy-independent, and economically assertive America could outweigh the immediate gains from a more redistributive or regulatory approach. Moreover, the effectiveness of economic policies often depends heavily on context, timing, and execution, suggesting that what’s “superior” might be more subjective than these economists imply.