Presidential Election: Main Economic Danger Is American Isolationism

More than Kamala Harris’ tax plan or Donald Trump’s attacks on Big Pharma, it is American protectionism that both candidates defend that is worrying.

Here’s a question that comes up regularly: For the good of their business, who do Swiss companies have an interest in seeing win the presidential election, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump? Although the former White House resident worries us with his conception of power and his increasingly violent rhetoric, economic circles are approaching this differently. Trump’s possible return to power is not making people anxious because for many economic players, there is an air of déjà vu.

The reasoning is simple. Businesses were able to adapt and get through Trump’s term as president, so there is no reason why they cannot do so again. And we are also counting on the reality of exercising power to keep Trump’s fervor in check. But the idea of déjà vu can just as easily apply to Harris. The candidate has provided few details about her economic program, but her record over four years as vice president suggests her policy is similar to that of Joe Biden.

Some are concerned about the Democratic candidate’s desire to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. Others are concerned about the two candidates’ desire to regulate drug prices and tackle Big Pharma — a central issue for the Swiss economy if ever there was one, with more than half of our exports to Uncle Sam coming from the pharmaceutical industry.

Threat to Global Financial Stability

But compared to the American retreat that began in the past decade, these concerns are secondary. Trump opened hostilities by introducing trade barriers to protect U.S. production, but Biden has not deviated from this trajectory. The two presidents toughened the Buy American Act, a law requiring federal agencies to prioritize goods made in the United States. Biden has also worked to restore United States independence in sectors such as semiconductors.

If he were to return, Trump has promised new trade barriers. As for Harris, she intends to protect American jobs at all costs and win the victory over China in the battle to dominate the 21st century. And both plan to implement their programs at the cost of increased public debt, which today poses a threat to global financial stability.

But even if it means facing an increasingly inward-looking United States, those in economic circles should still prefer an interlocutor who can speak clearly over the nationalist outbursts of a steadily unpredictable candidate. It would be one less uncertainty in an already troubled world.