Business Standard

There's no debating who would be better for US economy

Assessing a President's management of the economy is always a tricky business, because many developments will have been set in motion by one's predecessors

US flag, US, united states

Photo: pexels

Joseph E Stiglitz
Something has been missing from the flood of commentary following the debate between US President Joe Biden and 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.” Assessing a President’s management of the economy is always a tricky business, because many developments will have been set in motion by one’s predecessors. 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. By the time the economy was finally on the mend, Obama was on his way out, and Mr Trump was on his way in.
Although Mr Trump cannot be blamed for Covid-19, he certainly bears responsibility for an inadequate response that left the United States with a death toll far above 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 Mr Biden inherited.
Mr 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, Mr Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which launched a new era of industrial policy that will ensure the economy’s future resilience and competitiveness. And 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 for the subsequent inflation.
This 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.
Even more relevant to this election is what lies in the future. Careful economic modeling has shown that Mr Trump’s proposals would cause higher inflation — in spite of lower growth — and greater inequality.
For starters, Mr Trump would raise tariffs, and the costs would mostly be passed on to US consumers. Moreover, Mr Trump would curtail immigration, which would make the labour market tighter and increase the risk of labour shortages in some sectors. And he would 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 even further. 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 Mr Trump then violate 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. America owes much of its economic success in recent years to its technological prowess, which rests on solid scientific foundations. Yet Mr Trump would continue attacking our universities and demanding massive cutbacks in research and development expenditures. The only reason these cuts weren’t 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, Mr Trump would allow the workforce to shrink by curtailing immigration. Thus, on the question of who would be better for the economy — Mr Trump or Mr Biden (or any Democrat who might replace him, should he drop out) — there is simply no debate.

The writer is a Nobel laureate in economics. ©Project Syndicate, 2024
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of or the Business Standard newspaper

Don't miss the most important news and views of the day. Get them on our Telegram channel

First Published: Jul 05 2024 | 10:40 PM IST

Explore News