by Daniel Brouse
September 24, 2024
The latest economic analysis of the presidential candidates suggests that Trump’s fiscal policies could increase the federal deficit by an estimated $7-10 trillion over the next decade, primarily due to his proposed tax cuts and spending plans. Trump’s approach centers on lowering taxes, particularly for high-income earners and corporations, while increasing defense and infrastructure spending. This combination is likely to drive the deficit up significantly without matching revenue increases. Additionally, Trump plans to shift the tax burden from income-based taxes to consumption taxes, which disproportionately impacts lower- and middle-income households, as consumption taxes tend to be regressive.
In contrast, Kamala Harris’s fiscal policies are projected to have a much smaller effect on the federal deficit, with some analyses suggesting her approach may be close to net-neutral. Harris emphasizes maintaining and slightly increasing government revenue by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, while also focusing on targeted spending, such as expanding healthcare and education access.
However, it’s important to note that economic forecasts have limitations, particularly when considering non-concrete policy claims. For example, statements about “going after corporate gouging” or “building affordable housing” are often more rhetorical than substantive, as the details necessary to evaluate the financial feasibility of these promises are lacking. Consequently, these claims are typically excluded from rigorous economic projections because they lack clear policy frameworks or mechanisms for implementation.
This discrepancy between promises and reality is a common challenge in political economic analysis, as voters are often presented with grand ideas that may not withstand financial scrutiny.
Tariffs, Inflation, and the Climate
While the “Inflation Reduction Act” includes substantial subsidies for electric vehicles (EVs), Biden has maintained Trump’s China tariffs, and even imposed a 25% tariff on Chinese EVs, citing unsubstantiated claims that China is subsidizing its EV manufacturers. Another significant issue is the unfounded rhetoric around “corporate price gouging,” when the real culprit is supply and demand. Consumers’ insatiable appetite for mass consumption is what drives prices up, and it’s also a key factor in the looming climate catastrophe.
Climate-related inflation is a very real economic issue. For example, homeowners’ insurance has increased by 34% in the past five years, largely due to climate-related disasters. And this is just the beginning. In fact, it’s estimated that 25% of properties in the U.S. may become uninsurable within the next decade. Given this reality, claims about building affordable housing are unrealistic unless these foundational issues are addressed. These are the kinds of economic challenges that need to be tackled before I can give my endorsement.
Accepting Accountability
The government’s actions reveal a troubling mix of ignorance and indifference, turning what were once “worst-case” climate predictions into our current “best-case” scenarios. Updated climate models, now incorporating social-ecological factors, project that global temperatures could rise by as much as 9°C within this century — a drastic increase compared to previous estimates of a 4°C rise over the next millennium. Such extreme warming could push the planet toward a critical “wet-bulb” temperature threshold, where heat and humidity exceed the human body’s capacity to cool itself, posing severe and potentially lethal health risks. The need for decisive and immediate action has never been more urgent as climate change continues to spiral beyond control.
Unfortunately, that’s the reality. The root of the problem lies with us — the people. Government officials simply reflect our choices. Until consumer demands become more socially responsible, we’ll continue to get exactly what we want — and deserve. Each person bears the responsibility to minimize pollution, discontinue the use of fossil fuels, reduce consumption, and foster a culture of love and care. Only then can we drive the collective action needed to address the climate crisis and build a sustainable future.
Have you ever seen A Beautiful Mind, the movie about John Forbes Nash Jr.? One of our earlier papers on climate change, “The Golden Rule’s Social Justification,” draws heavily on Nash’s Nobel-winning work on Game Theory. Interestingly, it aligns closely with other core scientific, moral, and ethical principles. For a societal view, see the companion paper, Never Wake a Sleeping Giant.
Hypothesis:
The Golden Scales of Justice
Q: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or what?
A: Or, the elimination of all players is possible.
Proof: The Golden Rule can be applied to economics similarly to Nash’s Equilibrium (or Le Chatelier’s Principle in chemistry.)
“The best responses of all players are in accordance with each other.” — John Nash, Jr.
“If a dynamic equilibrium is disturbed by changing the conditions, the position of equilibrium moves to counteract the change.” — Le Chatelier’s Principle
Key Question:
What happens when the responses of all players are not aligned?
Answer: Justification for potential outcomes, including destabilization.
Also see: “Never Wake a Sleeping Giant: The Future of Climate Change”
Imagine society as a sleeping giant, with the few awake individuals — like you and me — sitting next to this giant. Do you want to startle the giant and suddenly wake him? Our economic system serves as the giant’s “heart and lung machine.”
Over time, we noticed that the machine was faltering — clearly bound to fail. At first, the instinct was to rebel, perhaps smash it, but doing so would have accelerated our own downfall.
We realized, despite the machine’s flaws, we needed time to find a replacement before taking drastic action. But what happens if the sleeping giant awakens prematurely and rages against this very system before we’re ready?
The challenge is evident: Even with the best intentions, such as everyone agreeing to stop polluting for a day, the repercussions would be disastrous. Essential services like hospitals and transport would cease, leading to long-lasting chaos. The disruption would ricochet through the food chain and energy sectors, possibly setting humanity on a course toward rapid collapse.
The irony is that trying to do the right thing too suddenly, like smashing the machine or stopping pollution, could lead to unforeseen consequences and deeper crises for society — where the solution to the problem becomes a new problem in itself.
While biogeophysical factors can be studied using math, physics, and historical records, socio-economic systems pose greater challenges due to the unintended consequences of human behavior and inexplicable consumer choices.