The elected president has the education of a business man. Hence, he is likely to support investment by various measures like tax reduction for reinvested profit, state support and guarantees, etc.
Obviously if taxes are reduced the federal budget will diminish thus reducing the federal programs especially the social ones since the governmental ones (to read the military ones) will not be reduced given the present geo-strategic situation.
More investment means more jobs. Taxing jobs compensates the tax reduction on profit and may even surpass it. The investment is not only aimed at US economy but also at other countries e.g. in Eastern Europe, such as the nuclear field development. In this case, along with the technology companies, the financial institutions are also benefiting.
Considering the geostrategic situation, there is another ‘commodity’ sold by US: security. The increase in GDP percentage contribution to NATO by member countries is mostly used to buy US made equipment. This is another boost for the economy.
The basic justification embedded in the general idea of protection is protecting the US investments above all else. This looks like a form of extended Marshall Plan. After the second World War there was no need for a great military cost in the European countries but there was a great need for investment in reconstruction. Thus, the Marshall Plan was giving money, under the form of equipment, creating jobs in the US and getting the debt service paid by the receiving economies to the US banks.
Now, the Russian, Chinese, etc. threat brings a new dimension: the provision of protection that needs more money from the beneficiary countries that are members of NATO.
One should note that some of these countries have their own military industry and are starting to claim portions of the protection funds for their own industries. This, if exploited, may create potential internal conflict vulnerability for NATO. The possible peace in Ukraine leaves the Ukrainian economy to pay for the aid received and, open to reconstruction. Payment may be done with resources of all kinds. Moreover, since the Russian threat will remain, the sell of arms made in US will continue.
On a different line, peace in Ukraine means more resources available to counteract China, Iran, and North Korea. That means more weapons to Taiwan, Israel and South Korea, in other words more jobs and profit for the US economy that will compensate the diminish of military aid to Ukraine, due to the peace there. Alternatively, the military industrial complex in US may not like peace and the war in Ukraine may continue with more involvement from US that will apply the same policy to enhance military economy, in order to compensate for the crisis induced by the Chinese imports.
The Chinese products are not coming through intermediaries but, directly, with the effect that profits are going to China. Taxing Chinese products may have a back fire effect on the economy. Thus, the Chinese worker that ‘is fed with a bowl of rice’ starts working for himself instead of for the foreign traders.
The Trump-nomics must take that into account and avoid short term isolationism that may leave the rest of the World to develop without the US presence and influence. Else, globalization may acquire a totally different meaning where the notion of free speech may be forgotten for a long time.
Energy wise US is in a good position: after gas at low prices, the nuclear sector is reviving in force. The renewals are also developing but on a smaller scale. The low prices of power are strongly contributing to the process of more investment in ‘re-industrialisation’ of the US that create more jobs with more money to the budget from taxation.
An economy the size of the US can not renounce fossil fuels, especially in transport. The penetration of EV technologies needs a proper time constant to create the infrastructure, to shift production supply channels, to re-educate the necessary personnel and to prepare the financial structures. All this will not happen in a four years presidential mandate and, in order to ‘Make America Great Again’ fossil fuels will have to be used on a large scale. This may result in the need to eliminate the elements that contribute to raising the prices, such as the Carbon tax.
In such a scenario US shall have to deal with the Paris Agreement requirements. A good solution for emissions reduction being the nuclear come back. Other measures may also be envisaged to keep the cost down, such as recycling technologies. This involves research and development that creates a number of new technologies open to be sold also outside US, as a part of the investments mentioned above.
In this context the Trump administration may propose a better and more efficient agreement than the Paris one. An agreement where economies will not be penalized for emissions but rewarded for implementing recycling technologies in a global circular economy development as a road to sustainability, a side effect of which, among other, would be the reduction of emissions.
Finally, we hope the Russian scenario to environmental temperature increase from anthropic causes will not be applied to impact our future evolution. The Russians keep talking of nuclear bombs: a sufficient number of them will drastically reduce the anthropic cause of emissions (great loss of anthropics) and the nuclear Winter that will follow will invert the environmental temperature increase. This is why we do not sustain the idea of ‘fighting climate change’ that may be translated in extreme scenarios like the one above, but the sustainable evolution based on a symbiotic relation with nature.