Economic Illiteracy: Repercussions and Remedies
Leading up to the 2024 election, the state of the economy under President Biden was a predominant concern among prospective voters. Residual inflation from the COVID-19 pandemic’s wrath on global markets spiked in 2022, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) reaching a peak value of 9.1%. Despite the CPI dropping to 2.7% by November 2024, increases in the cost of living remained at the forefront of voters’ minds (Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 2025). Americans felt that routine trips to the doctor, the gas pump, or the grocery store were slowly eroding their paycheck, and in turn, affecting their livelihood. Frustration and desperation led to deductive reasoning. The U.S. economy thrived during Donald Trump’s first term but slumped under the Biden administration; this correlation did not go unnoticed. In September 2024, Pew Research Center released poll data detailing that registered voters trusted Donald Trump to make sound economic policy decisions more than Kamala Harris by a margin of 10%.
Fast forward one month to October 27, 2024 – nearly twenty thousand of Donald Trump’s most devoted supporters crowded into Madison Square Garden, eager to contribute to the Trump campaign’s final push before Election Day. The arena’s anticipatory energy grew as preliminary voices, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Elon Musk, Hulk Hogan, and a variety of public figures, assured the audience that the brightest days of the American empire lay just a ballot away. After over two hours of introductory statements, finally, the main event arrived: Trump took the podium to a symphony of doting cheers and applause. Gradually, the symphony lulled, and Trump began to speak. Eight minutes into his speech, Trump uttered the word “tariff” for the first time that evening. “If these companies don’t make their products here, then they will pay a very stiff tariff when they send their products into the United States for the privilege of competing with our workers and our now protected companies,” Trump illustrated (Roll Call, n.d.). A new wave of thunderous cheers and applause swelled from the entranced audience. Where is this enthusiasm now that such policies have been enacted?
Economic illiteracy is a fundamental issue within the American electorate that deserves to be addressed. Over the past century, monetary policy has taken a more direct and influential role in the well-being of citizens in industrial countries. This coincides with the rise of globalization and the establishment of intricate supply chain networks between countries. To ordinary American consumers, the connected consequences of both domestic and international policy on the global economy are obscure. A prime example of this is the 2024 election.
Out of 1,080 voters polled after the November election, those who voted for Trump cited the economy and the cost of living/inflation as their top two most important concerns. On a scale from 0 (no influence on vote) to 10 (most decisive influence on vote), the average rating of Trump voters on both issues was 8.7 (Kalaitzandonakes, Ellison & Coppess, 2024). Trump promised constituents throughout his campaign that re-electing him would boost the economy, drive prices down, and restore American manufacturing. However, his proposed policies never outlined the specifics of how these promises would be implemented. Therein lies the problem: voters who picked Trump for the economy were unable to explain why they did so, other than disdain for the high inflation they endured under Biden.
Reasoning like this neglected the global trend of inflation as supply chains recovered from COVID-19 closures. It also ignored the potential (now real) consequences of Trump’s economic policy. As evidenced by his statements at the Madison Square Garden rally, Trump repeatedly expressed his desire to impose tariffs on countries importing to the U.S. prior to the start of his second term in office. Now that he has followed through on this, after-tax income in U.S. households is expected to drop by 1.9% this year as a direct result of tariffs (York & Durante, 2025).
However, some still argue in favor of tariffs for their use as a bargaining tool. Tariffs currently in place can be lowered under the condition that international companies move some of their production operations to the United States. South Korean automotive manufacturer Hyundai recently announced plans to invest $5.8 billion into creating a steel production plant in Donaldsonville, Louisiana, with the potential to generate 5,400 new jobs in the region (Louisiana Economic Development, 2025). Job creation of this magnitude is an inarguable benefit for Americans seeking employment. What this point overlooks is the significant technological advantage that South Korean manufacturers hold over U.S. companies. South Korea boasts an average robot density of 1,012 robots per 10,000 employees compared to the United States’ meager 285 robots per 10,000 employees (International Federation of Robotics, 2024).
Additionally, locating the plant in Louisiana, where the hourly minimum wage is only $7.25, guarantees access to cheap labor. Other key manufacturing countries hoping to bypass tariff strongarming will likely make similar investments. An influx of foreign manufacturers with superior technology, advanced automation, and lower production costs will place them in direct competition with domestic companies, which will struggle to keep up. Trump voters listed cost of living and the economy as their top motivators, yet elected a candidate whose trade policy is on track to increase domestic costs and undercut American businesses. This cognitive dissonance requires closer inspection.
A poll of 1,085 U.S. adults last December revealed that only 45% of those surveyed could correctly identify the definition of a tariff out of four multiple-choice options (Carmichael, 2024). Note that this poll took place after the election, after 77.3 million voters had already cast their ballots in favor of the tariff policy. One could easily place blame on these voters for any adverse effects that appear following the enactment of tariffs, but in their defense, they were promised well-paying jobs, low inflation, and a resurgence of dominant American manufacturing on a global scale. It is far less taxing to accept these idealistic promises at face value than to research the implications of the underlying policies. The root of this problem, like too many others, is traceable to the U.S. education system.
Only 28 out of 50 states require students to take a course in economics to graduate from high school. Personal finance is given slightly greater emphasis, with course requirements in 35 states (Council for Economic Education, 2024). This specific deficiency inhibits the American public from determining which policies truly act in their best interests. STEM, history, English, and foreign languages are all subjects that deserve their cards in the foundational Rolodex of knowledge, but economics courses are severely neglected during K-12 education in comparison. This is not due to a lack of interest by students. A survey of 1,000 U.S. teenagers found that 93% expressed belief that economics is an important subject. Yet out of survey participants who had previously taken an economics course in school, only 24% were able to correctly identify the role of the Federal Reserve (Junior Achievement USA, 2019). Expansion of economics course requirements should occur alongside a comprehensive improvement to the quality of education these courses deliver. Knowing how to handle the money in your pocket is helpful. Understanding how ineffective policies can whittle away at that money’s value is vital.
Works Cited
Carmichael, M. (2024, 13 December). Most people don’t know how tariffs work (and some even admit that). Ipsos. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/most-people-dont-know-how-tariffs-work-and-some-even-admit
Council for Economic Education. (2024). 2024 Survey of the States. https://www.councilforeconed.org/policy-advocacy/survey-of-the-states/
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. (2025, February 1). Inflation Charting. https://www.clevelandfed.org/center-for-inflation-research/inflation-charting
International Federation of Robotics. (2024, January 10). Global Robotics Race: Korea, Singapore, and Germany in the Lead. https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/global-robotics-race-korea-singapore-and-germany-in-the-lead
Junior Achievement USA. (2019, September 13). Teens Think Economics Education is Important, but Struggle with Basic Economic Concepts. https://jausa.ja.org/news/press-releases/teens-think-economics-education-is-important-but-struggle-with-basic-economic-concepts
Kalaitzandonakes, M., Ellison, B., & Coppess, J. (2024, December 5). The Importance of Food Prices in 2024 Election: Results from the Gardner Food & Agricultural Policy Survey. Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2024/12/the-importance-of-food-prices-in-2024-election-results-from-the-gardner-food-agricultural-policy-survey.html
Louisiana Economic Development. (2025, March 24). “Louisiana Wins Again,” Governor Jeff Landry & LED Secure $5.8 Billion Hyundai Steel Plant. https://www.opportunitylouisiana.gov/news/louisiana-wins-again-governor-jeff-landry-led-secure-5-8-billion-hyundai-steel-plant
Pew Research Center. (2024, September 9). Issues and the 2024 Election. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-the-2024-election/
Roll Call. (n.d.). Speech: Donald Trump Holds a Campaign Rally in New York City – October 27, 2024. https://rollcall.com/factbase/trump/transcript/donald-trump-speech-campaign-rally-new-york-madison-square-garden-october-27-2024/
York, E., & Durante, A. (2025, April 4). Trump Tariffs: The Economic Impact of the Trump Trade War. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/#:~:text=The%20Trump%20tariffs%20will%20reduce,per%20US%20household%20in%202025.
