international observation丨generous promises without regard for consequences: observations on us "campaign economics"
2024-09-08
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
xinhua news agency, beijing, september 8title: generous promises without regard for consequences: observations on american "campaign economics"
xinhua news agency reporter ouyang wei and xiong maoling
every time there is a us presidential election, candidates from both parties in the us try their best to sell their campaign ideas to voters and throw out a bunch of economic promises. these promises create a lot of "atmosphere" at the time, but later it turns out that they are just "empty promises" and "empty checks" that cannot be cashed at all.
this year's us presidential election is in full swing, and democratic and republican presidential candidates harris and trump have each painted their own economic "blueprints" to voters. the two have different policy proposals, which on the surface reflect the different ideas and priorities of their parties, but in fact still reflect the "campaign economics" strategy that "voter sentiment is more important than economic issues."
this is the capitol building photographed in washington, the capital of the united states, on january 5. photo by xinhua news agency reporter liu jie
"people's livelihood card" versus "america first"
harris used "opportunity economy" as the keyword for the first time to introduce her economic policy proposals at a campaign rally in north carolina in mid-august. harris supports stricter regulation of companies, more social welfare for the middle class, and higher taxes on companies and high-income people. among them, fighting inflation, reducing housing and medical costs, and reducing the tax burden on middle-class families constitute the three pillars of her economic policy.
to address the problem of high food prices, harris said he would implement a federal ban on "price fraud" by food production and retail companies, and strengthen supervision of mergers and acquisitions of large food manufacturers. harris promised to curb high housing costs by increasing housing supply, and to implement strict supervision and antitrust measures on the medical industry to reduce prescription drug prices. in terms of taxation, harris supports adjusting income and wealth redistribution policies, imposing more taxes on high-income families and companies, reducing the tax burden on middle- and low-income families, and increasing government spending on low-income families.
the main economic policies proposed by trump during the campaign include raising tariffs on imported goods, extending the tax cuts and jobs act, relaxing financial regulations, reducing corporate tax rates, and expanding domestic oil and gas exploration. these propositions reflect the continuation of trump's "america first" policy, which is to safeguard the economic interests of the united states through tax cuts, deregulation and trade protectionism. among them, he advocates imposing a 10% to 20% tariff on all goods imported from foreign countries, believing that tariffs can not only bring in fiscal revenue, but also promote the repatriation of the supply chain, encourage companies to build factories in the united states, and become a bargaining chip for the united states.
trump also advocated extending the tax cuts and jobs act, which is due to expire at the end of 2025, lowering corporate income tax rates, and promising to reduce the prices of cars, housing, insurance, and prescription drugs. he also repeatedly stressed the need to expand oil and gas extraction and cancel clean energy policies, saying that the united states has more "liquid gold" than any other country, namely oil and gas, and that inflation can be quickly reduced by expanding energy extraction.
“blank checks” cannot achieve policy goals
polls show that harris's economic policy proposals have not significantly improved her election prospects, but have instead sparked a lot of doubts. some commentators believe that most of her policies require the cooperation of congress and are difficult to implement; others believe that implementing her policies will increase the fiscal burden, which is tantamount to "drawing cakes to appease hunger" for the federal government, which already relies on debt to survive.
michael jones, professor of economics at the university of cincinnati, believes that harris's proposed price limit measures may lead to commodity shortages. in terms of tax cuts, mark zandi, chief economist at moody's analytics, said that harris's tax credits may eventually increase the national debt and lead to rising overall inflation, thereby harming consumer interests. the us tax foundation pointed out that harris' economic policies may cost more than $2 trillion within 10 years, exacerbate the debt crisis, and prompt the federal reserve to further extend its high interest rate stance.
experts believe that harris' continued expansion of public project spending will inevitably bring greater budget pressure. the struggle between the two parties over issues such as the national debt ceiling and fiscal year budget will also become more intense, which will hinder harris from fulfilling her economic promises.
as for trump, public opinion generally believes that strategies such as imposing tariffs on foreign countries may prompt some manufacturing companies to return to the united states in the short term, but in the long run it will push up u.s. inflation, drag down economic growth, trigger a trade war, and undermine global economic stability. in addition, tariff barriers will increase manufacturing costs and weaken the international competitiveness of the u.s. manufacturing industry. ultimately, this "drinking poison to quench thirst" approach may evolve into an economic disaster.
fortune magazine recently quoted an analysis by the oxford economics institute, saying that if trump is elected, the u.s. inflation rate will rise by 0.6 percentage points during his term. a study by the center for american progress action fund said that trump's tariff plan is equivalent to increasing the tax burden of each middle-income household by $3,900. the u.s. tax foundation predicts that if tariffs are imposed on all imported goods, the u.s. economy will shrink by 1.1% and threaten more than 825,000 jobs in the united states.
some media commentators pointed out that trump's tax cut policy favors the wealthy, which may cause public dissatisfaction and aggravate social divisions. if there is no synchronous contraction policy on the spending side, policies such as extending the tax cut bill and reducing corporate taxes may push up the federal fiscal deficit rate. in addition, trump's proposal to expand traditional fossil energy mining and cancel policies to promote the development of clean energy will bring challenges to the competitiveness of the united states in the international green economy.
desmond rachman, an economist at the american enterprise institute, told xinhua that neither trump nor harris proposed a plan on how to make the u.s. public finances more sustainable. the two did not discuss how to reduce the budget deficit. on the contrary, their campaign promises may exacerbate the u.s. public finance problems.
this is the u.s. treasury building photographed in washington, the capital of the united states, on july 29. photo by xinhua news agency reporter hu yousong
only focusing on “emotional value”
looking back at history, making various "promises" to voters during the campaign to win more support is a "traditional skill" of us presidential candidates. winning votes does not depend on the details of how policies are implemented. the "emotional value" brought to voters is more important than the policies they propose.
in this us election, in the political atmosphere where identity politics and ideology are prevalent, and in the social context where key voters are generally dissatisfied with the economy, economic issues have become a tool for "emotional mobilization" and are used by both parties to gather political momentum.
mark goldwein, senior vice president of the committee for a responsible federal budget, said that since the 2008 election, the details of the campaign platforms of us presidential candidates have become increasingly fewer and there has been less and less concern about how to implement their proposals.
the wall street journal reported that the candidates did not see policy details as the key to winning the election, but as part of a broader story about who the candidates are and why they are capable of achieving their promised goals. cnn also pointed out that the current campaign focuses on creating an atmosphere rather than coming up with specific policies.
greg cusack, a former u.s. congressman from iowa, noted that harris and trump did not propose specific measures for how to implement their so-called "economic policies." trump does not have any detailed plans and always seems to be moving with the wind of voters.
in goldwein's view, harris and trump's competition to please voters with generous fiscal spending promises is a "completely reasonable" campaign strategy, but not a good way to govern the country.
patrick gaspard, head of the center for american progress, said people don't look at policy details when they vote, and every election in the past 200 years has been a "vibe election."
however, this practice of "drawing big pictures" and "creating atmosphere" may also have a backlash effect. for example, when bush sr. ran for president, he solemnly promised "not to increase taxes", but after being elected, he faced a high deficit dilemma and finally had to compromise with the democratic party in congress and increase taxes. when he sought re-election in 1992, this "flaw" caused bush sr. to lose to bill clinton.
