Economists agree another Trump term would ruin the US economy — will voters listen? 

In recent weeks, the U.S. economy has gotten consistently good news. New data shows prices barely rose in August — just .1 percent — with the annual inflation rate now down to 2.2 percent. 

This allowed the Federal Reserve to lower rates aggressively, by half a point in September, and the Fed is expected to lower rates another half point in November. These actions will bring down mortgage rates, car loans and other borrowing costs, greatly benefiting consumers. They will also increase business investment and create more new jobs. 

In fact, the Biden-Harris economy, which has produced record job growth of 15.7 million new jobs in less than four years, is now achieving the much desired “soft landing” — taming inflation while avoiding a recession and continuing growth. And wages have been growing faster than prices, so workers are feeling more positive about the economy.  

All in all, despite COVID, the economy over the last four years has performed remarkably well. 

But Donald Trump’s radical economic plan would endanger all the progress we have made. The former president proposes exorbitant tariffs on the imports of goods and services into the U.S. that would bring back high inflation. His so-called Maganomics would be a mega-disaster for American consumers and families. 

Trump’s tariffs are “economic proposals that can actually cause inflation and put you into a recession – at the same time,” says David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Asset Management, calling them a “perfect stagflation machine.”  

Even the deeply conservative National Interest publication says “Trump’s tariffs would be a disaster for America, sparking 20 percent inflation or more for many goods and burdening average consumers with high costs. The conservative Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates Trump’s plans could cost the average household $2,600 a year, with low-income Americans suffering most.  

The Financial Times points out that Trump’s proposals are similar to the protectionist Smoot Hawley Tariff Act passed by Congress in the 1930s that helped prolong the Great Depression. The Times calls the Trump’s plans “a poison pill for the American people, the US economy and the world.”  

And Trump just keeps upping the ante, making his tariffs larger and worse. He now says they could be up to 20 percent across the board and 60 percent for China; if countries planned to reduce their dependence on the dollar, they could be hit with 100 percent tariffs “as punishment.” 

Trump’s proposals would also skyrocket the U.S. debt — The Penn Wharton Budget Model concluded that his policies would add $5.8 trillion in deficits over 10 years. No wonder The Economist magazine echoes the National Interest, finding “Trump’s tariff plans would be disastrous for America.” 

On top of all this, Trump has made explicit threats to the Federal Reserve’s independence, which is a lynchpin to America’s global economic leadership. The ex-president has repeatedly demeaned respected Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, questioning whether Powell was a bigger “enemy” of America than Chinese leader Xi Jinping.  

On the whole, “economists of all stripes agree that Trump’s agenda represents a far more radical extension of the policies introduced during his term in office between 2017 and 2021,” as the Financial Times notes.  

Vice President Harris has issued a large range of detailed and responsible economic policy proposals, including tax cuts under which a University of Pennsylvania Wharton School budget model found that 95 percent of Americans would pay lower taxes while the richest 5 percent would pay more. She has also proposed a 10-fold increase in startup expense deductions for new small businesses, raising the child care tax credit to $6,000 a year, getting 3 million new homes and rental units built in four years and lowering the price of prescription drugs. Additionally, Harris has repeated her support for clean energy incentives and climate action while opposing a fracking ban  

In contrast, as Harris noted in her recent debate with Trump, “Sixteen Nobel laureates have described [Trump’s] economic plan as something that would increase inflation and by the middle of next year would invite a recession.”  

In his first term, Trump’s own incompetence kept him from inflicting his worst ideas on America, with the exception of his massive tax cut for the rich, which exploded U.S. debt and inequality. But in a second term, Trump will now have a cadre of zealots who will actually attempt to impose his radical economic ideas. 

Economists of all types know that America’s economy will be far better off with Kamala Harris as president than in a disastrous second Donald Trump term. Now it’s time for average voters to realize it, too.  

Paul Bledsoe is a professorial lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy. He served on the staff of the US Senate Finance Committee under former Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan.