Is Trump's economic approach beneficial or harmful?

The headline might be a bit off. There are always two sides to every story, and when you take a closer look, it’s pretty evident that, as a businessman, his economic strategies usually favor the rich. 1. Tax Strategy: He suggested massive tax cuts totaling trillions, which includes extending the 2017 tax cuts and slashing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%. 2. Trade Strategy: He aimed to slap new tariffs of 10%-20% on a lot of imports, with even steeper tariffs on Chinese goods (at one point, going as high as 60%), plus huge tariffs on Mexican car products (even talking about hitting 200%). 3. Monetary Strategy: The Federal Reserve should drop interest rates to boost economic growth.

Let the man assume office before all this speculations and I think it's fair to access if a policy works or not after at least first hundred days in office. Policies are still subjected to changes he can have some interactions with is trusted team and may be make some adjustments for now all this are propositions. Also going by what you just wrote I would really like to understand how it benefits the wealthy. In addition Donald might be a billionaire but you hardly find any president of the United States of America who is a poor man or doesn't have wealthy friends, let's be honest. So thinking that Trump's policy would benefit the wealthy because he is one is unfair. Correct me if I am wrong TAX CUT is something that would benefit everyone both the upper class and the lower class?

During his first term Trump often referred to the stock market as an indicator how well he was doing. And his image as a deal maker and business man is important to him. No different his second term. And when printer goes brrrr stock market goes up (and btc!).

I'm relying somewhat on this article but adding my own thoughts. High taxes on imported goods will likely help local manufacturers and businesses, but as reliance on China is very high, I think some industries will be severely hurt because of the lack of domestic supply. His tax cuts will benefit the wealthiest the most, but can also be somewhat beneficial for small businesses. His migration policies will likely lead to negative economic impact, even though politically, they will be satisfying for a large part of the population. Overall, I think his approaches are risky, likely very good for very powerful people but pretty bad for the economy overall.

1 and 2 are in contradiction with 3 because they have the potential of causing inflation and FED can not lower interest rates if the inflation goes up high. 1) Cutting taxes will reduce government income. A government that has an increasing expense and is facing a bigger budget deficit every year. If they cut their revenue, they'll face an even bigger deficit. We all know the only thing governments know to do during deficits is to print more money therefore causing inflation. 2) Like his last term (https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-biden-tariffs/), intensifying the tariff war will only cause higher inflation in the US. 3) With 1 & 2 causing higher inflation, the FED can not lower interest rates. In fact they may increase it to an even higher value which means an even worse recession in the US. So are these policies are good or bad? We have to wait and see what he actually does and how they'll affect the US economy (6 to 12 months before we can give a better analysis); but for now they don't look good on paper.

If those proposals become law, I think they’ll benefit America. After all, that’s why people voted for him, he aims to ensure Americans enjoy the benefits meant for them. These laws seem to push the idea that America is for its people. Whether it’s ultimately good or not, we’ll have to wait and see the results before making any conclusions.

While it's true that tax cuts and tariffs can look like they're handouts to the wealthy, their macro impact is a little more complex. Lower corporate tax rates, for example, are usually part of a policy package aimed at increasing local investments and jobs, but still engender considerable debate on wealth distribution. Similarly, while high tariffs can raise consumer costs, they're also intended to preserve US industries and equalize competition with global competitors, a bipartisan trade approach mirrored in recent US trade strategies. Monetary policy, to take the possible Federal Reserve rate cuts in 2024 as an example, is a reflection of economic conditions, not political will. This reduction of interest may boost the economy, a factor that should be helping the rich and other fields. These examples are representative of the fact that many policies, while raising concerns about equity, are really about their broader economic intended ripple.

Well, these are his election promises! None of these have become a law yet. However, if these come into effect, both businesses and individuals are going to be positively affected. Reduction of tax percentage and lowering of interest rate, are going to impact positively for majority of the society. So I believe, these are people pleasing decisions. economy impact is probably going to be negative because the banks are going to suffer. Please wait until get gets to start his presidency in Jan. A lot to see to be honest!

Well, his economic policies remain to be seen, as he is still just a president-elect who has yet to take office. Regarding his campaign promises, I doubt he got elected just because of votes from "wealthy" - it was probably more regular middle class people unhappy with how things are who wanted something different.  Sure, some of his ideas might help the economy overall.  But a lot of times those kinds of plans tend to benefit the rich more than regular people. We've seen this play out before, so it's hard to imagine things will look drastically different this time, even if he does try to put a spin on it for the middle class. It's all about who gets the bigger slice of the pie.

It might depend where your political beliefs lie, as you may have some bias for or against anything Trump does or doesn’t do. Overall I think his policies are good, he’s a very successful businessman too so his decisions are likeoy to be better for growth & the economy than Harris’s would have been who was basically a public servant in her career.

as always some will win, some will loose. Last century the losers where a lot quieter.

Looking at this policies from the first to the last, first it gives a breath of fresh air for business owners who spend a fortune in running their business based operational cost, so a cut on tax too will certainly give them a relief which is good because it helps creates a business friendly environment for investors. Increasing the revenue of state by taxing food importation which is a good way to build revenue because hence you have a lot of foreigners in your country that are always importing their local food to your country, there should be a percentage of tax from that importation accruing to the government coffers.  However looking at the other policies you've outlined, I would say we should wait and see the effectiveness of this policies at least within a year or 6 months before we could give or pass judgment whether the policies are effective or ineffective.

These policies cannot be implemented at thesame time because they will conflict with each other. Cutting tax and reduction is tax will lead to inflation. When taxes are cut people will have more money to spend which will lead increase in the price of goods and services. Reduction of interest rates will also put more money in the hands of citizens because people can access loans or credit with low interest. These economic policies are applied based on certain conditions, it cannot be a long term policy. The FEDs have increased or kept interest rates steady for a long time. But it has been reducing for the last two months because of a decline in inflation and a reduction in job opportunities. Economists have predicted that if Trump implements these policies (together with his mass deportation) at once it will lead to high inflation.

You are right, it depends on each person's beliefs and political views. If OP is a Democrat, it's not surprising or confusing that he finds Trump's economic policies to be bullshit and laughable. Conversely, Harris supporters, no matter how bad her policies are, will see them as right and very good. I am like you, I believe Trump will be better for the world whether it is economically, politically or the crypto industry and that is why I support him over Harris. But that is the future and no one can predict it, let's wait and see what the world will be like in the next 4 years under his leadership.

Trump's economic policies have been a topic of debate lately. Personally I see a lot of potentials in his tax cuts, deregulation efforts, and focus on domestic manufacturing led to economic growth and low unemployment rates. Some other people may however, contend that his policies benefits only the wealthy. I really don’t see how his focus on tariffs will create uncertainty for businesses and strained international relations. These policies will continue to remain a concern I know, especially when it comes to how they affect social welfare and income inequality. Whether Trump's economic policies are viewed as good or bad depends on individual perspectives and the specific ways the economy affects them. Maybe I do not know enough to say, as I a not a resident or citizen of the US, so people there will have better understanding.

I will correct you because that's not how tax cuts work and you are wrong indeed. It's not a tax cut for upper class or lower class. Trump's decisions are going to be a tax cut for rich people. So no, it doesn't benefit you. Quite the opposite. And what comes to his tariffs, consumers and small business owners that rely on import are suffering most. And why shouldn't we speculate the impact of his promises? You are basically saying that "they might not be as bad as they sound". Are you saying he was too impulsive and vague, and didn't have a plan? Or that he lied and that's why we shouldn't?

We cannot say that this is good or bad before seeing the work that Trump is doing because in the end to judge that this step is good or bad it is definitely seen from the way of working and how he manages what he has currently programmed. Now we just have to wait for him to do his job with the work he wants to do. Because after all, considering this good we have not seen the steps he has taken, and vice versa when considering this bad we still cannot say that because there is no evidence that has happened because he has not started his work. The steps he took in carrying out his program must have been in consideration and indeed it may have targeted the local market from the beginning to be the first choice rather than imported products from outside so we only need to see whether this decision will really be able to be an answer and profitable for the Trump administration era or not.

His policies will change on a whim like everything else he does - if bad news is triggered by a change he will back out. He is not an economics driven president, he is a popularist president and his opinion is dictated by current events. He will bend towards whatever he thinks will keep him popular, which is a rather weak person, but the one that a majority of Americans seem to think it an acceptable leader. I don't think expect him to fulfil all of his original policies, but that's true for most politicians in fairness. Even in his last presidency he said a lot of stupid stuff but the actions he took were fairly regulated, however his party didn't control the house and congress, so it could get a lot worse

I see him as an actual businessman just as how it went for the first term he's got and with the news that I've read, he'll kick out undocumented and illegal immigrants which will be beneficial for the ones with actual citizenship. Friends to all which is good for business, for America. But we'll have to wait and see first how he would act when he's already on the seat. Right now, he keeps it on the topics that he'd make everyone amend the wars that are happening in different parts of the world where the USA has a huge involvement with most of them. Then, that would reflect for sure with the trade policies but again, let's wait and see how he drives and makes 'America great again'.

Tarrifs are generally a bad idea and well explored as a mistake in many administrations across decades in multiple centuries.   The reason for avoiding limits on trade is not theoretical its clear that both sides are worse off. The wording to explain why you dont try to kneecap your opponents as a way to win economically is explained in something like comparative advantage though multiple people might claim the theory or have written it in their own way the principle should be quite simple. On the other hand if China along with partners is determined to proceed towards war we are no longer just talking about good business and trade but survival in not enabling those who no longer value human life.