In most democracies, the primary concern after an election is that the winners will fail to deliver on their campaign promises. The 2024 US presidential election is one of those rare instances where there is a palpable fear that the newly elected leader will actually follow through.
ITHACA, NEW YORK – As the dust settles after one of the most turbulent presidential elections in American history, many are questioning whether President-elect Donald Trump will deliver on his economic agenda and – assuming he follows through on his campaign promises – what impact his policies will have on the United States and the rest of the world.
On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly pledged to create manufacturing jobs by imposing a 10% tariff on all imports and up to 60% on Chinese goods. He also vowed to punish American companies that produce goods overseas, deport millions of undocumented immigrants, and make it harder for migrants to enter the country and compete with American workers.
At first glance, Trump’s vision of a “manufacturing renaissance” may seem appealing. Given the election’s outcome, it has clearly resonated with voters. Financial markets also reacted positively: after the election was called, the dollar rose against most major currencies, and the S&P 500 recorded its largest weekly gain in a year.
But the reality is not as rosy as it may seem. The stock-market rally is primarily driven by expectations of significant tax cuts and deregulation. Plans to raise taxes on the super-rich and large corporations – a centerpiece of Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign – will be shelved, at least for now.
When it comes to Trump’s plans to restrict the flow of goods and people, experts remain far less optimistic. A recent Peterson Institute paper by Kimberly Clausing and Mary Lovely examines the potential consequences of Trump’s proposed trade barriers, warning that his import tariffs will lead to higher prices, with the burden falling disproportionately on low- and middle-income households.
To be sure, some may argue that Trump’s tariffs will not result in sustained inflation, just a one-time price spike. According to this view, the long-term benefits would outweigh the short-term costs.
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
But there is reason to believe that instead of delivering lasting economic gains, the trade policies Trump favors would cause serious damage. This is because, although consumers would undoubtedly shoulder much of the burden, they are only part of the story. A tariff wall around the US would raise costs for domestic producers – an outcome that would hardly come as a shock to anyone but Trump.
The fundamental flaw in Trump’s tariff plan is that domestic producers rely heavily on imported inputs. Consider steel: the US, the world’s largest steel importer, sources its supplies from 80 countries, including Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and China. A sharp increase in steel tariffs would thus drive up the cost of American-made products, erode the country’s economic competitiveness, and ultimately undermine Trump’s stated goal of bringing back manufacturing jobs.
Trump’s plan to limit the use of foreign labor would exacerbate the problem. India, for example, has been one of the largest providers of labor to the US since India’s 1991 economic reforms. Over the past three decades, outsourcing has been a boon for both India and the US, as the digital revolution enabled American companies to take advantage of India’s lower labor costs.
Restricting outsourcing in the name of protecting American workers will not only hurt India’s economy but also increase production costs in the US. In addition to reduced competitiveness, Trump’s proposed restrictions could have far-reaching geopolitical consequences, potentially undermining three decades of US diplomatic efforts to forge closer security ties with India.
Moreover, restricting access to cheap foreign labor would enable other countries, especially China, to outcompete American firms in the product market. As the US increasingly isolates itself, China is busy expanding its foothold in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Its growing presence in these regions could open new avenues for production and sourcing, boosting Chinese productivity and enhancing its geopolitical clout.
While the debate about outsourcing in the US is often framed as a simple conflict between American and foreign workers, what is often overlooked is that outsourcing pushes up corporate profits. The solution lies not in restricting access to lower-cost overseas labor but in using taxation to redistribute some of the gains from the rich to the poor, ensuring that the benefits of global trade are shared more equitably.
In most democracies, the primary concern following an election is that the winners will fail to deliver on their campaign promises. The 2024 US presidential election is one of those rare instances where there is palpable fear – in America and around the world – that the winner will actually follow through.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
By choosing to side with the aggressor in the Ukraine war, President Donald Trump’s administration has effectively driven the final nail into the coffin of US global leadership. Unless Europe fills the void – first and foremost by supporting Ukraine – it faces the prospect of more chaos and conflict in the years to come.
For most of human history, economic scarcity was a constant – the condition that had to be escaped, mitigated, or rationalized. Why, then, is scarcity's opposite regarded as a problem?
asks why the absence of economic scarcity is viewed as a problem rather than a cause for celebration.
ITHACA, NEW YORK – As the dust settles after one of the most turbulent presidential elections in American history, many are questioning whether President-elect Donald Trump will deliver on his economic agenda and – assuming he follows through on his campaign promises – what impact his policies will have on the United States and the rest of the world.
On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly pledged to create manufacturing jobs by imposing a 10% tariff on all imports and up to 60% on Chinese goods. He also vowed to punish American companies that produce goods overseas, deport millions of undocumented immigrants, and make it harder for migrants to enter the country and compete with American workers.
At first glance, Trump’s vision of a “manufacturing renaissance” may seem appealing. Given the election’s outcome, it has clearly resonated with voters. Financial markets also reacted positively: after the election was called, the dollar rose against most major currencies, and the S&P 500 recorded its largest weekly gain in a year.
But the reality is not as rosy as it may seem. The stock-market rally is primarily driven by expectations of significant tax cuts and deregulation. Plans to raise taxes on the super-rich and large corporations – a centerpiece of Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign – will be shelved, at least for now.
When it comes to Trump’s plans to restrict the flow of goods and people, experts remain far less optimistic. A recent Peterson Institute paper by Kimberly Clausing and Mary Lovely examines the potential consequences of Trump’s proposed trade barriers, warning that his import tariffs will lead to higher prices, with the burden falling disproportionately on low- and middle-income households.
To be sure, some may argue that Trump’s tariffs will not result in sustained inflation, just a one-time price spike. According to this view, the long-term benefits would outweigh the short-term costs.
Winter Sale: Save 40% on a new PS subscription
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
But there is reason to believe that instead of delivering lasting economic gains, the trade policies Trump favors would cause serious damage. This is because, although consumers would undoubtedly shoulder much of the burden, they are only part of the story. A tariff wall around the US would raise costs for domestic producers – an outcome that would hardly come as a shock to anyone but Trump.
The fundamental flaw in Trump’s tariff plan is that domestic producers rely heavily on imported inputs. Consider steel: the US, the world’s largest steel importer, sources its supplies from 80 countries, including Brazil, Canada, Mexico, and China. A sharp increase in steel tariffs would thus drive up the cost of American-made products, erode the country’s economic competitiveness, and ultimately undermine Trump’s stated goal of bringing back manufacturing jobs.
Trump’s plan to limit the use of foreign labor would exacerbate the problem. India, for example, has been one of the largest providers of labor to the US since India’s 1991 economic reforms. Over the past three decades, outsourcing has been a boon for both India and the US, as the digital revolution enabled American companies to take advantage of India’s lower labor costs.
Restricting outsourcing in the name of protecting American workers will not only hurt India’s economy but also increase production costs in the US. In addition to reduced competitiveness, Trump’s proposed restrictions could have far-reaching geopolitical consequences, potentially undermining three decades of US diplomatic efforts to forge closer security ties with India.
Moreover, restricting access to cheap foreign labor would enable other countries, especially China, to outcompete American firms in the product market. As the US increasingly isolates itself, China is busy expanding its foothold in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Its growing presence in these regions could open new avenues for production and sourcing, boosting Chinese productivity and enhancing its geopolitical clout.
While the debate about outsourcing in the US is often framed as a simple conflict between American and foreign workers, what is often overlooked is that outsourcing pushes up corporate profits. The solution lies not in restricting access to lower-cost overseas labor but in using taxation to redistribute some of the gains from the rich to the poor, ensuring that the benefits of global trade are shared more equitably.
In most democracies, the primary concern following an election is that the winners will fail to deliver on their campaign promises. The 2024 US presidential election is one of those rare instances where there is palpable fear – in America and around the world – that the winner will actually follow through.