In the contemporary political landscape, economic claims from both the Biden-Harris administration and former President Trump have come under scrutiny. Each side boasts achievements while simultaneously downplaying the broader context that significantly affects economic outcomes. During their tenure, the Biden-Harris camp emphasizes the creation of 16 million jobs, while Trump lauds the economy as the “Greatest Ever,” particularly highlighting low inflation rates at the end of his presidency. Despite these assertions, both parties conveniently sidestep critical factors impacting the economy, such as the business cycle phase, Federal Reserve policies, and global economic dynamics. Meaningful comparisons between administrations require nuanced consideration beyond superficial references to four- or eight-year presidential terms, owing to the myriad other forces at play.
Investigating the reported job growth under the Biden-Harris administration reveals a more complex picture. While they claim to have created 16.6 million jobs since December 2020, the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that a substantial percentage of these jobs—approximately 59% or 9.8 million—could not be classified as new. Rather, many of them reflected the recovery of jobs lost during the pandemic-induced lockdowns, a rebound rather than genuine job creation. In reality, when examining employment figures from the last peak in February 2020 to September 2024, net job additions under the current administration amount to only 151,000 per month, a stark contrast to the monthly averages during both Obama’s second term and Trump’s presidency prior to the pandemic, which were significantly higher. Thus, Harris-Biden’s claim of success is undermined by a context that reveals a much weaker job growth trajectory.
Economic growth under Trump also paints a disappointing picture. The rate of real final sales of domestic product during his presidency averaged just 1.5% per year—the second lowest since President Eisenhower, placing him near the bottom of a historical growth ranking. Even adjusting for pandemic effects, Trump’s economic performance remains lackluster. Critics point to the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse for this failure, but it is essential to recognize that the economic downturn was exacerbated by the lockdown measures he ordered. The government’s rapid response to the pandemic, characterized by a significant increase in spending and stimulus measures, can’t entirely absolve Trump of accountability for the resulting economic conditions. In this light, claims of a robust economy under his leadership seem misplaced.
Compounding the situation, inflation rates during Trump’s administration also beg scrutiny. The assertion of low inflation—recorded at 1.9% just before he left office—obscures the overarching context of incremental price changes. The average inflation rate during his presidency was 2.12% per annum, situating it squarely in the median of historically recorded rates. Furthermore, his failure to address the ongoing loss of purchasing power translates into significant economic implications for everyday Americans. Trump’s policies did not stem this depreciation, raising questions about his administration’s effectiveness in safeguarding the financial well-being of the citizenry, contradicting the “great economy” narrative.
The inflationary pressures that have emerged since the onset of the pandemic did not originate in a vacuum but rather stem from an unprecedented surge in government spending and monetary policy decisions made under Trump’s watch. By imposing extensive lockdown measures, the federal response set the stage for a massive fiscal stimulus program, including the $3.54 trillion surge in government spending observed in Q2 2020. Such extraordinary financial influxes, initiated during Trump’s term, artificially stimulated demand at a time when supply chains were straining under the weight of widespread restrictions. This confluence of demand shocks and supply constraints has become a significant driver of the inflationary landscape seen today.
Additionally, the Federal Reserve’s response to the economic scenario shaped a critical multipart dynamic. Between August 2019 and April 2022, the Fed’s balance sheet expanded by over $5 trillion, with a substantial portion accumulated during Trump’s latter months in office. This unprecedented monetary expansion effectively set the stage for inflationary pressures, exacerbated by the fiscal responses to lockdowns and economic dislocation. As the economy slowly began to recover, inflation rates soared to levels not experienced in decades, mirroring trends interpreted by many as being tied to policy decisions made during the Trump administration.
Ultimately, both candidates are seemingly out of touch with the core issues underlying the economic turmoil: rampant inflation and purchasing power loss. Kamala Harris’s reliance on simplistic policy prescriptions, like restricting price gouging, fails to recognize the fundamental market forces at play. Rather than directing blame at supermarkets, it is imperative to confront the systemic issues stemming from excessive government spending and monetary policy. Both major political factions within the current presidential campaigning landscape often advocate for similar fiscal strategies, perpetuating a cycle that may lead to further economic strife without effectively addressing the underlying problems. It raises a challenging question: will the cycle of policy failures persist as political leaders navigate the complexities of the U.S. economy?
