Bidenomics vs. Trumponomics: A Comparison of Economic Policies – Which is Less Evil?

Bidenomics vs. Trumponomics: A Comparison of Economic Policies – Which is Less Evil?

In the ongoing debate between Bidenomics and Trumponomics, two contrasting economic policies put forth by the recent U.S. presidents, it’s essential to understand their key differences and assess which one could be considered “less evil.”

Fiscal Policy

Under Trumponomics, the former president’s fiscal policy focused on massive tax cuts, particularly for corporations and wealthy individuals. In contrast, Bidenomics has proposed a more progressive tax system to fund social programs and infrastructure improvements.

Monetary Policy

As for monetary policy, the Federal Reserve under Trump continued to follow a conventional path of maintaining low interest rates while attempting to normalize them towards the end of his term. Conversely, under Bidenomics, there is a strong emphasis on a more aggressive and accommodative monetary policy to stimulate the economy amidst the ongoing pandemic.

Regulation

Regarding regulation, Trump’s administration pursued a deregulatory agenda to minimize the burden on businesses. In contrast, Bidenomics promises to reverse many of these regulatory rollbacks and re-establish environmental protections.

Social Policies

In terms of social policies, Trump’s administration focused on restrictive immigration and limiting access to healthcare. However, Bidenomics intends to expand access to healthcare through the Affordable Care Act and promote a more inclusive immigration policy.

Infrastructure

Another significant difference between the two economic policies lies in infrastructure investment. Trump’s administration focused on tax incentives for private investment, while Bidenomics proposes a massive infrastructure spending bill to create jobs and stimulate economic growth.

Ultimately, the determination of which policy is “less evil” is subjective and depends on individual perspectives. It’s crucial to evaluate each policy based on its potential impact on the economy, society, and various stakeholders.

Comparing Bidenomics and Trumponomics: A Moral Assessment

I. Introduction

Presidential economic policies have a significant impact on the nation’s economy and its people. Over the past few years, America has seen two distinct economic approaches under the administrations of President Joe Biden and his predecessor, Donald Trump. In this analysis, we will briefly introduce these economic policies, called Bidenomics and Trumponomics, respectively. Furthermore, we will discuss the importance of understanding their differences in shaping America’s economic future and provide a moral assessment.

Brief Explanation of Bidenomics and Trumponomics

Trumponomics, implemented during the Trump administration, primarily focused on tax cuts and deregulation to boost economic growth. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which was signed into law in 2017, reduced individual income tax rates for most Americans and cut corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%. This policy was intended to encourage businesses to create jobs, invest in the United States, and ultimately lead to higher wages for workers.

In contrast, Bidenomics, as proposed by the Biden administration, is centered around rebuilding the economy post-pandemic. The plan includes increasing infrastructure spending, investing in clean energy and education, raising the corporate tax rate to 28%, and expanding the social safety net by expanding access to healthcare, child care, and paid leave. Bidenomics aims to create jobs, reduce income inequality, and build a more sustainable economy for the future.

Importance of Understanding Differences

Comprehending the differences between Bidenomics and Trumponomics is crucial for understanding how each administration’s economic policies will shape America’s economic future. The two approaches have contrasting goals, with Trumponomics focusing on short-term growth through deregulation and tax cuts, while Bidenomics prioritizes long-term sustainability and reducing inequality.

Objective: Moral Assessment

The objective of this analysis is to provide an in-depth comparison of the moral implications of Bidenomics and Trumponomics. We will evaluate these economic policies based on several factors, including their impact on income inequality, sustainability, and moral values. By examining these aspects, we can determine which policy is considered less “evil” from an ethical perspective.

Fiscal Policies

Trump Administration’s Fiscal Policy – The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)

The Trump Administration‘s fiscal policy was marked by the link, signed into law in December 2017. The overall aim of this legislation was to stimulate economic growth by reducing corporate and individual tax rates. One of the most significant impacts of the TCJA was the reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Additionally, individual tax rates were reduced and some deductions were eliminated. The administration argued that the tax cuts would spur economic growth by keeping more money in the hands of businesses and individuals, leading to increased investment and job creation.

Criticisms and Long-Term Consequences

However, the TCJA‘s critics argue that its fiscal impact has been less impressive. While there was a brief period of economic growth following the passage of the bill, many economists believe that this was due to other factors, such as the strong labor market and consumer confidence. Furthermore, the TCJA is projected to add trillions of dollars to the national debt over the next decade. This could have long-term consequences, including higher interest rates and a larger burden on future generations.

Biden Administration’s Fiscal Policy – American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) and proposed Build Back Better Agenda

Under the Biden Administration, fiscal policy has focused on responding to the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The link, passed in March 2021, provided over $1.9 trillion in relief to individuals and businesses affected by the pandemic. The ARP included direct payments to individuals, enhanced unemployment benefits, and funding for vaccines, testing, and schools.

Analysis of Fiscal Policy Goals

The Biden administration’s fiscal policy goals are centered on economic recovery and addressing inequality. The ARP was designed to provide immediate relief to those most affected by the pandemic, while the proposed Build Back Better Agenda includes investments in education, child care, healthcare, and climate change. The administration argues that these policies will create jobs, reduce poverty, and make the economy more equitable.

Comparison with Trump’s Fiscal Policy

In comparison to the Trump administration’s fiscal policy, the Biden administration’s approach is seen as more targeted and equitable. The ARP disproportionately benefits lower-income individuals, while the TCJA primarily benefited higher-income taxpayers. Moreover, the Biden administration’s proposed policies aim to address long-term economic challenges, such as inequality and climate change, which were not prioritized under the Trump administration.

I Monetary Policies

Trump Administration’s Monetary Policy – The Federal Reserve’s Role under Jerome Powell

1. Overview of the Federal Reserve’s role during Trump’s tenure: During Donald Trump’s presidency, Jerome Powell served as the Chair of the Federal Reserve from February 2018 to the present. The Federal Reserve, under Powell’s leadership, faced challenges in balancing inflation concerns with the need to support economic growth. In late 2018 and early 2019, the Fed raised interest rates four times due to concerns about a potential overheating economy. However, global economic headwinds and signs of slowing growth led the Fed to pivot in late 2019 and lower interest rates three times. This shift aimed to bolster the economy amidst rising trade tensions and concerns about a global recession.
2. Evaluation of the impact of the Federal Reserve’s decisions on the economy: The Fed’s rate hikes in 2018 contributed to a stock market sell-off, raising concerns about an economic slowdown. Conversely, the subsequent interest rate cuts helped support a rebound in the economy, which continued into 2020. However, the Fed’s actions were overshadowed by Trump’s aggressive trade policies and other economic uncertainties.

Biden Administration’s Monetary Policy – The Federal Reserve under Jerome Powell and potential future changes

1. Analysis of the current state of the Federal Reserve and its approach to monetary policy: As of now, the Federal Reserve under Jerome Powell continues to support the economy with low interest rates and an expansive balance sheet. The Fed has stated that it will maintain its accommodative monetary policy until inflation reaches 2% on a sustained basis. This stance is crucial to support Bidenomics, which aims to boost economic growth and create jobs.
2. Discussion on potential implications for Bidenomics under changing economic conditions: A change in monetary policy could significantly impact Bidenomics, especially if the economy recovers more quickly than expected or if inflation begins to rise at an uncomfortable rate. If the Fed raises interest rates too soon, it could dampen economic growth and hinder Biden’s economic agenda. Conversely, if inflation becomes a concern, the Fed may need to take action to contain it, potentially slowing the pace of economic recovery.

Trade Policies

Trump Administration’s Trade Policy – America First and the U.S.-China Trade War

During the Trump administration, trade policies took a significant shift with the “America First” approach. President Trump implemented protectionist measures, renegotiated existing trade deals, and initiated a trade war with China, which had profound implications on global trade.

Overview of Trump’s trade policies and their impact on global trade

The America First policy led to the withdrawal from multilateral agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Paris Climate Agreement. Instead, Trump focused on bilateral deals like the USMCA with Mexico and Canada. Additionally, the administration imposed tariffs on imported goods from various countries, including China, Europe, and Mexico, to protect American industries and create a trade deficit in favor of the U.S.

Evaluation of the consequences of the U.S.-China trade war

The U.S.-China trade war led to a significant decrease in global trade, with both countries imposing reciprocal tariffs on each other’s goods. The conflict affected industries such as agriculture, technology, and manufacturing, causing uncertainty and instability in the global economy. There were also indirect consequences, like supply chain disruptions and increased costs for businesses.

Biden Administration’s Trade Policy – Return to Multilateralism and diplomacy

With the Biden administration, there has been a shift towards multilateralism and diplomacy in trade policies.

Overview of the Biden administration’s trade policies and goals

President Biden has prioritized rejoining multilateral agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the TPP. The administration has also expressed a commitment to working with allies and addressing challenges collectively instead of through unilateral actions. Additionally, the focus is on promoting economic competitiveness, innovation, and job growth while upholding labor standards and environmental protections.

Comparison of Biden’s approach to trade with Trump’s, including potential benefits and challenges

Compared to the America First policy, Biden’s approach to trade is more collaborative and multilateral. This could lead to benefits such as increased cooperation with allies, stronger international institutions, and a more stable global economy. However, challenges include potential pushback from countries that feel the U.S. might be too dominant in international organizations and negotiations, as well as resistance to multilateral agreements from some domestic stakeholders.

Environmental Policies

Trump Administration’s Environmental Policy – Rollback of Regulations and Deregulation efforts

The Trump Administration’s environmental policies were marked by a significant rollback of regulations and deregulation efforts. One of the most notable actions was the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement in 2017, an international accord aimed at combating climate change. The Administration also moved to dismantle various environmental rules, including the

Clean Power Plan

, an Obama-era initiative designed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. Additionally, the Trump Administration opened up vast areas of public lands for oil and gas drilling, rolled back fuel efficiency standards, and weakened protections for endangered species. Critics argue that these policies have

adversely affected the environment

and could have long-term negative consequences for public health and the economy.

Biden Administration’s Environmental Policy – Climate Action Plan and Green New Deal

With the Biden Administration, there has been a shift in focus towards climate action and sustainability. The

Climate Action Plan

outlines several key initiatives, including rejoining the Paris Agreement and implementing a zero-emission power sector by 2035. The

Green New Deal

, although not a formal policy yet, proposes a massive investment in clean energy and infrastructure to create jobs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These policies aim to

address climate change

and transition the economy towards a more sustainable future.

Comparison between Trump’s and Biden’s Approaches to Environmental Issues: Economic Implications

The contrasting approaches to environmental issues between the Trump and Biden Administrations also carry significant economic implications. The Trump Administration’s deregulation efforts were seen by some as a way to boost the economy and create jobs, particularly in industries like coal, oil, and gas. However, critics argue that these economic gains were outweighed by the long-term costs to the environment and public health.

The Biden Administration’s climate policies, on the other hand, are expected to require substantial investment and could lead to job creation in sectors like renewable energy and infrastructure. However, there may also be economic challenges, such as the transition costs for industries that rely on fossil fuels and could face regulations or competition from cleaner alternatives.

VI. Conclusion

Recap of the Key Differences between Bidenomics and Trumponomics

Bidenomics and Trumponomics represent two distinct economic policies that have emerged under the administrations of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, respectively. While both policies aim to stimulate economic growth, they differ significantly in their approaches to fiscal, monetary, trade, and environmental policies.

Fiscal Policy:

Bidenomics: The Biden administration has proposed a $1.9 trillion stimulus package, aimed at addressing the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic through increased spending on areas such as education, childcare, and infrastructure. The policy also includes provisions to raise taxes on corporations and high earners.

Trumponomics:

Trumponomics: The Trump administration’s fiscal policy focused on tax cuts, primarily the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which reduced corporate and individual taxes. The goal was to spur economic growth through tax incentives and deregulation.

Monetary Policy:

Bidenomics: The Biden administration has expressed its commitment to an activist monetary policy, with the Federal Reserve continuing its expansionary stance, aiming to keep interest rates low and support the recovery.

Trumponomics:

Trumponomics: The Trump administration’s monetary policy stance was more focused on maintaining low inflation, with the Federal Reserve raising interest rates three times between 2015 and 2018.

Trade Policy:

Bidenomics: The Biden administration has signaled a shift towards multilateralism and re-engaging with international organizations, such as the World Trade Organization. The administration also supports the revival of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Trumponomics:

Trumponomics: The Trump administration implemented a protectionist trade policy through tariffs, primarily targeting China and other nations. The goal was to protect American industries and create jobs.

Environmental Policy:

Bidenomics: The Biden administration has pledged to prioritize climate change and environmental issues, including rejoining the Paris Agreement, proposing a $2 trillion infrastructure plan with a focus on clean energy, and establishing a National Climate Task Force.

Trumponomics:

Trumponomics: The Trump administration rolled back numerous environmental regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the United States rule. This policy shift was aimed at reducing regulatory burdens on businesses.

Evaluation of Which Economic Policy is Considered Less Evil

Fairness and Equity:

Bidenomics may be considered less evil when it comes to fairness and equity as the policy focuses on increasing spending in areas that benefit lower-income households, such as education and childcare. In contrast, Trumponomics’ tax cuts primarily benefited high earners and corporations.

Effectiveness in Addressing Economic Challenges:

Bidenomics might also be considered less evil based on effectiveness, as the stimulus package aims to address the economic challenges posed by the pandemic and its aftermath. In comparison, Trumponomics’ tax cuts did not provide a clear solution for addressing significant economic challenges during the Trump administration.

Long-term Sustainability and Impact on Future Generations:

Bidenomics might be considered less evil when it comes to long-term sustainability, as the infrastructure investments and clean energy focus could lead to a more resilient economy. However, Trumponomics’ deregulation and tax cuts may have negative long-term consequences by increasing the national debt and worsening income inequality.

Final Thoughts

Understanding the differences between Bidenomics and Trumponomics is essential for American citizens, as these economic policies have far-reaching implications for their well-being and the global community. By evaluating each policy’s fairness, effectiveness, and long-term sustainability, it becomes clear that one may be considered less evil than the other. As the economic landscape continues to evolve, staying informed about these policies will help individuals make informed decisions and engage in meaningful discussions on their potential impact.

video