who is the better for the world economy? donald trump port, kama le harris dw business looks at the to us candidates policies, and the good or harm they might do. david levitz, thanks for watching the vine humming, does not get drunk. why do gravitational waves squeeze out bodies? how much do we need to put a pond print to help find the offices, get smaller on dw science, outtake talk channel, where the united states economy goes. the global economy follows. and who leads the country? you will have an especially profound effect on to the world shaping forces, especially trade and energy. what do we know about the economic plans of the 2

candidates running to be president, and how will they be felt around the world? that's all coming up on business beyond 1st stop if you have any questions about the candidates running for president and the economic visions. be sure to post them in the comments section below. we'll answer them in a live q and a know back to the topic at hand. it's almost too obvious to say, but for the purpose of laying down the groundwork, the u. s. economy is really important. globally, it's the biggest one, accounts for around a quarter of global g, d p. it's the 2nd largest trading nation, and the us dollar is the world's leading reserve currency and the one most widely used. so who does what here matters? let's get situated the us economy is doing for all intents and purposes quite well . post pandemic, a robust jobs market and strong consumer spending meant that the u. s. economy found stock more forcefully and more quickly than any other and large advanced

economy in the world. and looking ahead, this recent rate card and succeeding one's anticipated being that whoever becomes president is likely to benefit from to, for borrowing. at the moment, however, the u. s. is still in an ear of high prices, and many americans feel the economy is doing more poorly than it really is. both trump and harris has made the case for being a better economic manager than the other. but only one of them has been president until this past can be pro long. does it ministration was chaotic, which to create uncertainty and the business community which affects investment and effects things that the companies do. you know, he would see something on tv at breakfast, and then he would come out at 10 o'clock in the morning and announce a new policy to the surprise of everybody, including his staff. and then the lawyers would have to spend the next 2 days trying to figure out how to make it legal. i don't think you should underestimate the harm that does to the economy because what it tells company is, is you don't know if today's policy is going to be next week's policy. and you

don't know, some new thing is going to come out of the box tomorrow. and the best thing to do in that case is to the whole lot of your wallet and not invest, waiting to see what's going to happen. that's certainly true with respect to for an investment in trade, although notoriously unpredictable over all trumps attitude towards the terrace has been pretty consistent. we're going to put a 100 percent off on every single saw that comes across the line. and you're not gonna be able to sell those guys if i get elected. now, if i don't get elected, it's going to be a blood bath for the whole. that's going to be the least of it. it's gotta be a blood bass or the country that'll be released of it. now a lot has been made about that blood bath combat, and to be sure it is an on necessarily violent way to describe how detrimental imported cars could be to the domestic auto making industry. but that is what he's talking about. and it's vintage trump. remember how it as 1st term from started

a trade war that put tariffs on more than $300000000000.00 worth of chinese goods during his 1st administration. his trade policy is essentially a policy of america as a victim of america is a victim of evil. foreigners that are still in our jobs undermining our manufacturing and compromise in our national security. he's going to fix it this time around. he's proposing across the board, 10 percent, or of he's proposed to 60 percent or more to our, of on china. for her part camera harris has attacked the idea of imposing duties on all foreign goods coming into the west. she did so during the 1st debate between herself and donald trump and has been doing so before she was even the presidential candidate. on the issue of the cost of living, donald trump says he will implement a 10 percent terrace on all imported goods. well understand independent economist agree his terrace would increase the cost of

every day expenses for families, the cost of gas, groceries, and clothing. in a recent letter, 60 nobel prize when they economies wrote that they were deeply concerned about the negative impacts. trump's economic policies could have and there seems to be a consensus around that in the wider expert community. this is steve called an economist at the university of north texas. off the 3rd of imports in the united states are intermediate products that go in to things that are produced and sold by the united states. and so, if we put tariffs on all the imports that are coming in, then it's going to raise the price of things that are being produced in the united states that use any imported products. so then that makes us less competitive in terms of selling those products abroad, or it raises the prices that we're going to pay domestically for. of those products,

we can probably safely assume that a harris administration is unlikely to adopt a tariff on everything policy. the way that trump said that he would, but this isn't to say that terrorists are generally off the table. in fact, it's worth noting that the biden harris administration actually maintains many of the trump ero tariffs on chinese products and added many of their own. some of these new to our san chinese and parts are top ups on tariffs that were already there, like on solar cells and electric cars. some of them are completely new, like the one on syringes. and it's worth noting that many of the new tariffs are meant to shield manufacturing of the us, like the car industry in michigan sunny conductor plants in arizona and the steel industry in pennsylvania. and that's good news for some american companies for not for all, especially once range maker we spoke to and little out in texas with manufacturing operations and china. thomas shaw heads the company. so we're not against terrorists, per se. it's a tool is gonna hurt us financially,

but we're still going to do it. it's just that it was a destruction of a further destruction of our ability to bring new products to concentrate on other things, to slow down a little bit. it could do exactly what they want, create competition, create jobs, and give america its independence on. so ranges and every country should have independence on their healthcare needs. because you never know when you're bored or should kind of get into this situation where you can't get stuff. so we're all in favor of that. let's just do it right. what he means by doing it right is allowing the company more time to adjust to new rules and more time to move their operations from china to the west. but in recognition of the likely reality, under a trump or harris administration, they're not asking for the tears to be lifted, since that's unlikely to happen. and that's also statement as to where washington's mind is when it comes to treat, especially with china. and then that you start talking about trying,

you're talking about national security. so the bite administration is taken in a number of actions on somebody, conductors, for example, batteries of electric vehicles, critical minerals in the name of security, in the name of protecting our national security. and, and the name of for protecting the supply chain, security and resilience of the republic in response to most of that has been not to oppose it, but to say too little too late. which suggests that it trump comes back in and he'll probably move it just as aggressively in the same direction to preserve supply chain resiliency united states to focus on reassuring bringing jobs back into the united states. i've characterized the difference though, between of uh trumps approaches or the meat cleaver and dividing. approach has been a scalpel. now what does that mean for you and for everyone else in the world?

so imagine donald trump has been elected president knox terrace against the countries trading, whether united states like those in europe. that means an extra 20 percent charge on all goods coming into the us from abroad. these countries retaliate with their own terrace. tit for tat rounds. come into play, global supply chains are disrupted, and everything across the board becomes more expensive. who does that effect? yes, exactly. everyone. there's another economic issue that's moving large over the selection and one that has been hunting couple of hours. tomorrow our surrendered our energy independence spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the green news cam. she's trying to take away gas stoves and heaters. she's valid repeatedly that we will band fracking. we will always been frank and she just added to that. so they have a clip from like, 2 years ago. she said, no, no, i'm in favor of tracking like,

last week. oh no, no, i'm ever. then there's a plane flips. we will always been fratkin. there will never be fratkin. the people of pennsylvania are smart, they're not gonna fall for she will destroy if you don't have frack and you don't have as you don't have a common, well, there was a time when harris did say she wanted a band tracking that wasn't the run up to the 2020 election since then, she's reversed her position to be in favor of fracking, and in that respect, she and trump are on the same page or not in small part due to the rise of fracking, the u. s. has become the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas and production levels of rows especially sharply under the biden administration. that's true for both fossil fuels. and the u. s. is also the world's largest exporter of natural gas. today about half of europe's ellen g in parts come from the us. and

there's more where that came from. consider the marcella shell formation. a geologic formation of shell rock buried, standing around 234000 square kilometers in 2019 the united states. geological survey estimated that it contains $97.00 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, natural gas, or the question of how to walk the line between social and environmental interests and energy production is a more likely feature of a harris administration than a trump one. just like it featured in the bite and administration, it may sound counter intuitive, but while there was a record amount of oil and gas production under biden, he also signed the installation reduction act into law. that's a huge piece of legislation putting $370000000000.00 towards climate action and clean energy. but trump is less likely to weigh competing priorities in that way. ringback all the cova is an expert on energy security. ready i think the narrative is going to be the biggest difference to dave. i think for harris

administration, really calling again and talking about why we need to balance climates in the energy security and comparing as to where we have already heard. trump really emphasizing kind of energy independence, you know, really focusing in more on reducing, you know, reliance on other countries in america, being strong exporter and not having additional regulations that are impeding companies for doing so. but we do know that even under bite and we're showing guess reduction as you know, skyrocketed. so it's all about narrative versus coming, taking a peek behind the curtain. what's happening here is at least one possible impact of those competing visions. if known unilateralists, trump is going to focus on what he calls energy dominance and expand fossil fuel production, he's unlikely to want to coordinate or cooperate with other countries as he does so . his campaign has said that he is going to pull out of the paris agreement again,

just like you did in 2017. that's the global agreement, intended to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases causing climate change. that would have quite a few global implications from less climate financing for developing countries to taking the world even further away from limiting planetary warming and closer to even more extreme weather events. in some respects, trump and harris are surprisingly close when it comes to their positions, but far apart when it comes to how they may implement those positions. when it comes to trade, harris is likely to want to safeguard good trade in relations with allies and partners. it is unlikely to go to the protectionist length, but trump would, but no one expects her to advance, but free trade agenda at a time where in many ways it's falling out of favor. when it comes to energy, it's hard to see how are either of them would deviate from the so called. all of the above approach that pass administrations have followed this idea that the full

range of available technology should be exploited fossil fuels and renewable energy . but again, the difference would be in degrees, prioritization, or strategic implementation. and the willingness to work with other countries towards the global energy transition. in terms of how things will look exactly under which administration. there is still a lot of bikes to feel and there is still a lot of factors, whether macro economic or geo political that are difficult to account for. and as this election itself shows anything can happen, no matter who is running and no matter who ends up becoming president. but one of the most key distinctions between trump and harris is how they engage with the world. and that's something all of us should be watching very closely. and that's it for this edition of business beyond if you have any other questions about the presidential candidates and their economic visions as far as we understand them, please feel free to post them in the comments section and we will address them in a live q and a bye for now,

the, [000:00:00;00] the i'm priscilla and san lagos, nigeria, welcome to our new edition of eco offer got to month, cause deployment disruption. there's no effect of life this week. we'll look through that to examples across the continental process for me to change the many ways that the economies of societies are react to into today's new reality and adopt into a show of by the way, with lead becomes more sustainable. here's what's coming up.