Both major party candidates in the U.S. have started to share details about what they envision for the economy and how they want to get to that vision. What will be the real-world effects of those policies, and how can you get ready for what’s coming?
From Peter Reagan for Birch Gold Group
Key takeaways
- Harris economic plan: Higher corporate taxes and price controls leading to inflation and economic instability
- Trump economic plan: Lower corporate taxes and raise tariffs – good for long-term economic growth, bad for prices
- Both plans will significantly affect the U.S. economy in very different ways
- The next President will start at a disadvantage, thanks to Bidenomics
- Prepare now for the economic and financial changes ahead
As we move into the final months of the 2024 presidential race, we’re starting to hear details from both the Trump and Harris campaigns. We’re learning more about how they plan to ensure a prosperous future for our country.
Obviously, considering everything we know about each candidate, they have very different plans.
Regardless of who wins the election, we can expect big changes ahead. Let’s consider how their policy proposals will affect you and your family…
Highlights from the Harris economic plan
Let’s start with Kamala Harris, and, to be frank, if you have even a basic understanding of real economics (and not the collectivist thinking that so many think is economics), then, you can’t help but shake your head at nearly everything that she is pushing for.
Frankly, it’s a bit hard to know where she is being truthful about what she plans on doing. After all, she actually said recently, “I’m a capitalist. I believe in free and fair markets.”
…but, then, proposes some very anti-free market policies.
So, what are the details? A recent breakdown of Harris’s tax plans over at taxfoundation.org gives us gems like the following:
The current top combined corporate tax rate – including the average of state rates – is 25.6 percent. Harris would increase it to 32.2 percent, the second-highest corporate tax rate in the OECD.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or OECD is composed of 38 member nations, mostly first-world nations like Australia and the UK. Obviously, higher corporate taxes disincentivize corporations from operating in the U.S.
Furthermore, corporations have a mechanism for offsetting higher costs, including tax increases: They pass them on to their customers.
So raising corporate taxes by 6.6% is, more or less, the equivalent of raising prices 6.6%.
But Harris’s economic advisors aren’t completely incompetent – because they have a plan to offset those higher prices. You can call them “anti-price-gouging measures,” or you could call them price controls:
Harris’s plan will include “the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries – setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries,” the campaign said in a statement.
The exact details of the campaign’s plan were not immediately clear, but Harris said she would aim to enact the ban within her first 100 days, in part by directing the Federal Trade Commission to impose “harsh penalties” on firms that break new limits on “price gouging.” The statement did not define price gouging or “excessive” profits.
…okay.
If you follow international news, you may be familiar with similar price controls and their catastrophic results in Venezuela.
I’ll let economist Noah Smith explain the consequences:
Price controls on food are a really terrible idea. The best-case scenario is that the controls are ineffectual but create the legal and administrative machinery for far more harmful controls in the future. The worst-case scenario is that they cause shortages of food and groceries, leading to mass hardship, exacerbating inflation, and setting America up for increased political instability.
Or we can look to Robert Sterling’s post on X for a more thorough explanation of the likely consequences.
In sum, price controls are such a universally-acknowledged terrible idea that even Times columnist and unofficial Democratic economist Paul Krugman had to “walk back” Harris’s position.
Okay, I’m getting bogged down – if I try to explain the consequences of every one of Harris’s bad ideas, we’ll never get anywhere. Instead, let me rely on the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s analysis of the Harris plan:
Higher taxes have consequences – they don’t just increase the government’s revenue, they disincentivize corporations and individuals. To the tune of nearly 1 million jobs along with lower wages and lower long-term economic growth.
If you want an economy to grow, you make it business- and investor-friendly. You offer incentives up front in exchange for increased, long-term economic growth.
Increasing taxes on both corporations and successful citizens, well, leads to the opposite. Simply by discouraging investment in future economic growth.
But that’s just a small part of the Harris economic plan. Let’s turn to spending…
Harris doubles down on Bidenomics
That’s right, not only does Harris’s economic plan make it clear that it will hurt business and the overall economy just with her taxes, she also wants to spend massive amounts of money on her favored “infrastructure” projects. Just like Bidenomics – only bigger.
It’s clear that, in many ways, Harris’s proposals are simply Bidenomics 2.0 (or, as I recently heard someone refer to it: “Bidenomics Squared” because it takes what Biden has done to our economy and takes it to a new level).
She wants to nearly double child tax credits for newborns. To double the Federal government’s spending on “affordable housing.”
Biden wanted a $25,000 grant for first-generation, first-time homebuyers. Harris wants the same for everyone.
The irony there being that the government’s deficit spending causes inflation in the first place! This is not a problem we can solve by increasing government spending.
Bidenomics directly led to a 20% destruction of dollar purchasing power since January 2021.
I think it’s safe to expect Bidenomics 2.0 to continue that destruction.
As far as I can tell, there’s no economically rational reason to vote for Harris.
So let’s take a look at what the Trump campaign proposes…
The Trump plan: Short-term sacrifice for long-term gain
No matter who wins in November, they’re going to have to work through the legacy of Bidenomics, the inflation, the historic pile of debt accumulated by the Biden administration and the lagging economic growth of the past few years.
WIth that said, Trump’s proposals focus on long-term economic changes – and that’s a good thing. Again, from taxfoundation.org we have information about Trump’s proposals:
- Lower the corporate income tax rate to 20%
- Further lower the corporate income tax to 15% for companies that make their products here in the U.S.
- Exempt Social Security benefits from taxation
- Impose a 60% tariff on Chinese imports (and a 20% tariff on other imported goods)
The first two of these proposals are directly counter to Harris’s economically-destructive plans. Trump is setting up an economic policy to encourage long-term economic growth.
The third? Well, since we already paid taxes on our income before it went into Social Security, it seems fair to eliminate that tax. I’m honestly not sure what the economic impact would be – although I’m sure that those millions of Americans depending on Social Security for their very survival would appreciate it.
Finally, the tariffs – which have received the most attention in mainstream media.
I’ll not mince words here: Tariffs will increase prices. For the same reason that raising corporate taxes raises prices. Exporters aren’t just going to eat the additional expense – they’ll pass it on to the customer.
Under Trump’s tariff proposal, pretty much everything Walmart and Harbor Freightand all the other retail outlets operating as storefronts for Chinese manufacturers will be more expensive. Prices for all imported goods, from German cars to English cheddar, will go up.
The economic goal of raising tariffs on imports is pretty straight-forward: It incentivizes Americans to buy American. At the same time, they give American manufacturers and producers a competitive advantage. In the short term, we’d pay higher prices – and over the long term, we’d all benefit from a stronger industrial base producing a wide range of high-quality American-made products.
It’s a trade-off: Short-term sacrifice for long-term benefits. Those benefits come at a cost.
Two candidates, two very different visions
The upcoming election poses two very different visions of the American economy.
Harris offers us Bidenomics squared – a lot more spending and a lot more wealth redistribution that will not just devalue the dollar but damage our nation’s long-term economic prospects.
Trump presents a business-friendly option alongside steep tariffs – guaranteed to boost the economy over time, but costly to the typical American family.
This isn’t a politics column, though – we’re more interested in how these two visions are likely to influence our personal finances.
Let’s face it: No matter who wins the election, the U.S. economy is not in good shape. The Bidenomics dollar destruction, that 20% of our purchasing power we’ve lost since January 2021 is gone forever. Just staying current on the national debt already costs more than we spend on defense! Year in, year out…
No matter who wins the election, I foresee tough times ahead. The question is whether the tough times will ultimately benefit the nation.
With that in mind, let’s turn our focus to what we can control: Our own personal economies. I believe it’s wise to diversify your savings with an asset that endures high inflation and economic stagnation (Harris’s policies) or the uncomfortable adjustments and growing pains required to make the American economy great again (Trump’s plan).
Diversification is a smart move regardless. Ideally, your savings include assets that thrive when the economy is great – as well as when the economy is not so great.
Physical precious metals, specifically gold and silver, are more than just a safe haven. They’re one of the very few financial assets you can hold in your hand. They aren’t dependent on the Federal Reserve or the Department of the Treasury to be valuable. And, being tangible assets, their intrinsic value can’t be inflated away.
As you consider how to prepare for the future, it makes sense to research investments that are inflation resistant, and to get a different perspective on diversification to make sure that your personal economy is sound regardless of who is in the Oval Office.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:
Maybe we all spend too much time arguing who’s right and who’s wrong. It’s probably a better use of our time and attention to make sure our savings are diversified to benefit from a growing or a contracting economy, high inflation or low inflation. Now is a good time to consider hedging your bets, especially if you’ve already picked a side. Don’t worry about being right or wrong. Don’t let your ego stand in the way of your financial future.
Don’t forget to vote – and don’t forget to prepare your savings for the future, regardless of who wins the upcoming election.