As the crucial US presidential election approaches, the campaign has reached fever pitch, with Donald Trump and his cronies making increasingly radical promises about what they would do with power. But such promises, for example on fiscal policy, will inevitably be broken. After all, it is mathematically impossible to cut taxes on corporations and billionaires, maintain basic programs like defense and Social Security, and simultaneously reduce the deficit.

Some of the Trump campaign’s most absurd promises come from Elon Musk, who claims to know how to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. That’s pretty rich coming from someone whose companies rely heavily on government contracts and bailouts (without the $465 million loan it received from the Obama administration, Tesla might well have gone bankrupt ).

Musk’s claims betray a surprising ignorance of economics and politics. His proposals represent a reduction of about a third of all government spending, eight times more than what the General Accountability Office (the government’s internal watchdog) estimates constitutes waste or fraud.

Among other things, the United States should cut all “discretionary” spending, including in defense, health, education, and the Treasury and Commerce departments, as well as significantly reduce Social Security, Medicare and other well-established and extremely popular programs.

While America’s economic strength rests on the foundations of science and technology, Trump has repeatedly proposed massive cuts to federal research spending, which would be devastating to the progress of basic science and would impact many key economic sectors.

Such drastic cuts imply that Trump would try to persuade Congress to make major changes to these programs. But don’t hold your breath. Trump already had four years to dismantle the “administrative state” when he was president, and he failed to deliver on his promises. Now he’s making populist promises that would increase (not subtract) the deficit — more than $7.5 trillion over the coming decade.

Such drastic cuts would have devastating effects on the American economy and society. Slash-and-burn policies inevitably fail. Just as US Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s belt-tightening strategy under Herbert Hoover contributed to the Great Depression, austerity policies implemented in the UK under 14 years of Conservative rule led to a decade and half of stagnation.

The contrast between the economic agendas of Trump and Kamala Harris could not be starker. Harris’ plan would lower the cost of living – building on provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to reduce drug and energy costs – and make housing more affordable, while rates Trump’s tariffs (a tax on imported goods) would make everything more expensive for citizens. Americans, especially middle- and low-income households.

In virtually every area where the country faces a challenge, Trump’s policies would only make things worse. Even before the pandemic, life expectancy in the United States – already the lowest among advanced economies – was declining under Trump. By aiming to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the provision of the IRA that reduces the price of prescription drugs, Trump would only make the situation worse.

Likewise, America tops the list of advanced economies in terms of inequality, and Trump’s tax cuts for the rich would widen the gap even further. Harris’ policies, on the other hand, would directly aim to improve the living standards of the middle class.

In addition to health crises and inequalities, climate change is costing Americans dearly in human lives and property damage.

Yet Trump has approached fossil fuel tycoons over their campaign contributions, promising in return to reduce pollution regulations. Not only would it leave America behind many other countries in the transition to a clean energy economy; it would also make the United States an international pariah (again).

These are some of the many reasons why 23 Nobel Prize-winning American economists recently signed an open letter supporting Harris. It’s hard to get two economists to agree on anything, but we concluded that “overall, Harris’ economic agenda will improve health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment and equity of our country and will be far superior to the counterproductive economic program. of Donald Trump.”

Portfolio issues play a significant role in this election, and we Nobel Prize economists have concluded that, without a doubt, “Kamala Harris would be a much better manager of our economy.”

Many Americans understandably want to forget all the chaos (and excess mortality from Covid-19) that prevailed during Trump’s presidency. But we don’t have to do it. With Trump openly seeking revenge on what he calls his “enemies within” and the Republican Party now nothing more than a cult of personality, there is no doubt that a second presidency would be even worse than the first.

While America’s economic strength rests on the foundations of science and technology, Trump has repeatedly proposed massive cuts to federal research spending, which would be devastating to the progress of basic science and would impact many key economic sectors. When he was in power, even the Republicans understood the imprudence of his proposals in this area and rejected them. But from now on, the party’s degrading servility towards him is total.

In another open letter, my fellow Nobel Prize-winning economists and I were joined by Nobel Prize-winning scientists (over 80 in total). Together, we emphasize that “the enormous increases in living standards and life expectancy over the past two centuries are largely the result of advances in science and technology.

Kamala Harris recognizes this and understands that maintaining American leadership in these areas requires budgetary support from the federal government, independent universities, and international collaboration. Harris also recognizes the key role that immigrants have always played in the advancement of science. »

Unfortunately, even Musk — whose companies depend on basic science done by others — hasn’t fully thought through what Trump would mean for his bottom line. Short-term greed – a fixation on tax cuts and loosening regulations – has enticed many captains of industry and finance to join Team Trump.

Trump is proposing rentier crony capitalism, a kind of capitalism that, while it works well for Musk and other billionaires, won’t be good for the rest of us. But Harris, at least, projects hope that, through reasoning and cooperation, Americans can create a more resilient, more inclusive, faster-growing economy — one that surpasses crony capitalism and shares benefits more equitably. benefits of growth.

Joseph E Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics and professor at Columbia University, is a former chief economist of the World Bank, chairman of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers and co-chairman of the High-Level Commission on carbon price.

Disclaimer: This article was first published on Project Syndicate and is published under a special syndication agreement.