In the final stretch of the 2024 election, two vastly different economic philosophies are in play.

On one side, former President Donald Trump offers a familiar yet bold promise: unleash American industry, slash corporate taxes, and restore American energy dominance. Trump’s economic platform is about cutting through government red tape and empowering the American worker by reducing the tax burden, fostering competitive manufacturing, and making the U.S. energy-independent once again. Trump argues that these are essential to bolstering the American middle class and revitalizing a once-booming economy stifled by what he calls “excessive government intervention.”

Kamala Harris, meanwhile, advocates for an economy shaped by government-led investments, emphasizing affordable healthcare, green energy jobs, and social programs. To Harris and her supporters, the modern American economy can only be sustained by embracing large-scale investments in green technology, combined with stronger social safety nets to ensure “equity” across all demographics. While the Harris team points to climate and healthcare as central to a “fair” economy, critics argue her plans hinge too heavily on public spending and regulation, which risks creating an even larger tax burden and ultimately limiting job creation.

Trump’s focus on deregulation and energy independence draws from policies that in the past led to a booming job market and reduced dependency on foreign energy. His recent rally in New York hammered home his commitment to undoing what he calls the “crippling” climate policies of the Harris-Biden administration, which he argues have stymied American oil production and driven gas prices higher. Trump’s plan would see the U.S. become the top global energy producer once more, exporting oil and natural gas while lowering costs at home. The core of this strategy is a rejuvenated manufacturing sector, fueled by cheaper domestic energy.

Harris’s green energy agenda, on the other hand, aims to phase out fossil fuels in favor of renewables, creating new “green jobs” to replace traditional energy roles. While this is appealing to some urban and younger voters, there is substantial skepticism among middle-America workers who depend on oil and gas industries. Conservatives point out that her policy’s heavy reliance on government subsidies and regulations risks deterring private sector investment and ultimately costing more than it saves in environmental gains.

Critics of Harris’s economic policies also caution that her push to expand healthcare will mean higher taxes and federal debt, which could burden future generations. Supporters argue that without it, many families would continue to face healthcare insecurity, but those against the expansion see it as another step toward excessive government control over individual lives and pocketbooks.

As voters prepare to make their choice, the debate isn’t just about jobs or energy, but about what role government should play in everyday American lives. Trump’s plan appeals to the independent worker and entrepreneur, while Harris champions a broader, government-led economic strategy. The decision will be pivotal in defining America’s economic landscape.