The 2024 presidential election is lacking the fiscal rationality many anticipated.

The complexity of financial issues makes them prime subjects for candidates to manipulate and promise grandiose but unrealistic scenarios for voters to support them. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are capitalizing on this opportunity.

Proposals like controlling grocery prices, capping credit card rates, offering subsidies for housing and small businesses, endorsing U.S.-backed cryptocurrencies, implementing rent control caps, and raising tariffs seem attractive to voters. However, the assumed belief that these measures won’t impact them directly is common among supporters.

Fortunately, numerous “get-elected” pledges often don’t materialize due to the current dysfunctional Congress’s lack of agreement. Even economists, known for poor prediction accuracy and post-disaster analysis, are united in opposing the current assortment of financial policies being advocated.

When governments intervene in free markets to achieve social objectives, businesses are forced to make decisions based on non-economic factors. This interference usually triggers a chain of events that distort markets and result in financial disruptions.

Historical examples like President Andrew Jackson’s banking reform in 1832 and President Teddy Roosevelt’s regulatory actions in the early 20th century contributed to financial panics by destabilizing markets and introducing uncertainties.

Similarly, the 1920s Federal Reserve’s decision to maintain lower interest rates helped cause the Great Depression. Subsequent legislation in the 1960s and government actions in the 1990s and early 2000s, designed to promote home ownership through relaxed lending standards, led to unintended economic consequences.

Economists have repeatedly pointed out that well-intentioned policies can backfire, affecting credit availability, trade balances, and other economic variables. The belief that increasing home ownership would benefit the country has often resulted in negative economic outcomes, such as encouraging unqualified individuals to become homeowners.

Despite historical evidence of economic disasters caused by flawed policies, political leaders continue to implement impractical measures, ultimately harming the economy. As voters, deciding which candidate offers the least problematic economic agenda can be challenging in the current election cycle.