Of course, there are a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with economic policy to choose between Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, and other candidates running for president of the United States. But as an economist…
I think it would be a good idea to vote for someone who acknowledges that America’s budget and America’s debt accumulation is a problem, and has serious proposals to fix it. Proposals for further tax cuts and spending are not mathematically feasible solutions.
We would do well to vote for someone who recognizes that Social Security and Medicare are soon facing real and serious solvency problems and offers some proposals to fix them. Lowering taxes on Social Security benefits or increasing benefits for low-income people will not help the solvency problem, whatever the justification for such policies.
You’d do well to vote for someone who sees “inflation” as something that happens when too much demand chases too few goods, rather than a surge of greedy sellers or a useful approach to getting the Fed out of the way.
You’d do well to vote for someone who doesn’t think government controls on the prices of rent, credit card interest rates, prescription drugs, groceries, etc. are anything more than temporary and dysfunctional Band-Aids. It would also be good to vote for someone who has a plan to slow the rising cost of American health care without pretending that price controls are the answer.
Rather than focusing on subsidizing potential buyers, it would be better to vote for someone with a concrete plan to dramatically increase the amount of housing built across America while working within the constraints of local control over zoning and building codes. . We wish all the best for existing and potential builders of new homes.
You might want to vote for someone who emphasizes that government’s role in encouraging economic growth should focus on an education system that provides a skilled workforce, supports research and development, and ensures opportunities for competitive businesses to grow. no see. Grow without major subsidies to favored industries (e.g. semiconductors or green energy).
We would do well to vote for someone who emphasizes that America needs much more “active labor market policies” for the unemployed—government policies that support active job search, job training, and cross-border mobility. It’s not just about paying unemployment benefits, it’s about finding a job.
We would do well to vote for someone who highlights the potential benefits to the U.S. economy from increased skilled and legal immigration and focuses on these issues separately from those of border enforcement.
You’d do well to vote for someone who doesn’t believe that ever-expanding subsidies can solve the emissions problem and is willing to support putting a price on carbon. With more than half of global carbon emissions coming from countries in the Asia/Pacific region, and China accounting for nearly a third of global carbon emissions, it might be a good idea to vote for someone who has a real plan. emission.
It would be a good idea to vote for someone who cares a lot about the professional day-to-day administration and oversight of government programs such as spending, taxes, and regulations, and who speaks about the goals of those programs.
Of course, I know that Harris and Trump don’t speak the same words when they sometimes run into these issues along the campaign trail. I also know that these kinds of issues are mentioned in policy documents hidden away on campaign websites that I’m guessing no one, including the candidates, will read. I personally understand the practical necessity of voting for a “less bad” candidate rather than one we can wholeheartedly support. But it’s still baffling to me that the campaign’s discussion of so many key economic issues seems evasive at best and misguided at worst.
The post Politically Homeless in the Land of Economics appeared first on Conversable Economist.
