This is still laughable

| 6:00 pm EDT October 27, 2024
Dear Palmer Report readers, we all understand the difficult era we're heading into. Major media outlets are caving to Trump already. Even the internet itself and publishing platforms may be at risk. But Palmer Report is nonetheless going to lead the fight. We're funding our 2025 operating expenses now, so we can keep publishing no matter what happens. I'm asking you to contribute if you can, because the stakes are just so high. You can donate here.

When this race was between Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, a group of 16 Nobel laureates in economics issued a stark warning about the potential economic repercussions of a second Trump term. As I wrote about in late June, these leading economists cautioned that Trump’s “fiscally irresponsible budgets” would likely “reignite” inflation. Joseph Stiglitz, who led the effort, wanted voters to know that “a group of credible economists differs very strongly” to the absurd notion that Trump would manage the economy better than Biden.

With Donald Trump now begrudgingly campaigning against Vice President Kamala Harris, the idea that he would be better for the U.S. economy is still laughable. As a result, the Nobel laureates are back, but this time they are sounding the alarm on a grander scale.

First, 23 Nobel economics laureates, including Stiglitz, published a new open letter (which you can read here) praising the Harris agenda as “vastly better” for the U.S. economy than Trump’s. The letter points out that despite the 23 signatories having their own unique economic views, they all agree that a Harris administration would “improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness.” Trump’s agenda would not only be “counterproductive,” but also threaten the rule of law, creating economic and political uncertainty.

More broadly, Stiglitz also drafted an open letter that was signed by an impressive 82 American Nobel Prize winners in economics as well as physics, chemistry, and medicine. This letter (which you can read here) argues that politicians need to value scientific advancement because it has driven the “enormous increases in living standards and life expectancies over the past two centuries.” Only Harris has proven herself to be a leader in promoting science, recognizing the importance of robust government funding, independent universities, international collaboration, and immigrants’ traditionally “key role.”

By contrast, Trump would take the nation backward with science and technology. A second Trump term would “jeopardize any advancements in our standards of living, slow the progress of science and technology, and impede our responses to climate change,” the letter warns.

American Nobel winners in economics and sciences can only imagine how their careers and the nation would have faltered if government leadership had failed them. In addition, all of us can imagine the unspeakable damage that a new Trump administration would bring. On November 5, voters will decide whether the United States is empowered to enjoy a thriving economy and global scientific leadership under a Harris administration, or reverse gears and sputter out under Trump.