Many people want to change their lives for the better.  In pursuit of that goal, Craig Groeschel argues for prioritizing “what you want most” over “what you want now.”[1]  One major theme in American politics since the Cold War has been both major parties urging Americans to prioritize “what they want now” over “what they want most.”  One reason is clear.  Offering people “what they want now” is the path to popularity and political success.[2]  It may also be the road to Hell. 

            In a market economy, free trade is an ideal goal.  It encourages specialization in what each country does best and the exchange of those goods to maximize efficiency.  In this framework, tariffs are to be avoided except under special circumstances.  The reasons to avoid them are that they raise prices for consumers while decreasing competitive pressures on producers.  The special circumstances include sheltering infant industries and protecting industries vital to national security.  Donald Trump imposed the first tariffs on China as a major head-slap against an economic and political opponent.  Joe Biden continued those tariffs, even though they had been one of Trump’s much-decried breaks with traditional policy.  Now, Kamala Harris seems likely to continue Biden’s policy, while Trump proposes to increase the tariffs on China and expand them to a 10 or 20 percent tariff on all products from all countries.  The European Union and China are likely to resist American tariffs with their own measures. 

            In a market economy, prices signal the balance or imbalance between supply and demand.  High prices are a call for more production or cheaper substitutes.  Government at various levels already controls some prices.  Biden and Harris have proposed removing federal tax benefits for landlords who raise rents more than 5 percent, and attacking what they call “price gouging.”  In the case of apartment rents, the market already began to work before the Biden-Harris proposal saw the light of day.  Developers have built and are still building apartments; rents have begun to fall. 

            Donald Trump has favored Medicare negotiating with drug companies over the price of drugs; the Biden administration has begun to put that plan into effect.  Medicare is such a huge force in the pharmaceuticals market that drug companies have reason to regard this as the entering wedge for comprehensive price controls.  One housing economist has argued that anything resembling permanent rent controls will cause landlords to adapt to the market intervention.  They will build less and convert more of the existing rental units to condominiums. 

            Both parties are promising big giveaways through the tax system.  Trump and Harris want to end taxes on tips; Trump wants to end taxes on Social Security income; Harris has called for a $6,000 tax “credit” on new children, and a $25,000 tax “credit” for first-time home buyers. 

            Economists have estimated that Harris’s proposals would cost the country about $1 trillion over ten years; Trump’s would cost $1.6 trillion at a minimum over the same period.  The deficit and debt are at scary levels already.  It would be reasonable to start working them down.  But politicians of both parties prefer to offer people “what they want now” over what they “should want most.”  Economists called it a bad idea when Trump proposed a new round of $2,000 stimulus cheques in December 2020.  The idea then got folded into Joe Biden’s spending plans.  That made the gathering inflation even worse.  It was what people “wanted now.” 

[1] Craig Groeschel, The Power to Change: Mastering the Habits That Matter Most (2023). 

[2] Greg Ip, “In Campaign ’24, RIP Economics,” WSJ, 23 August 2024.