In other words I don't think the article really addresses its own thesis.
Edit: the sitting president of course has influence on the big picture, but there are many other factors at play, some of which are inevitable
lots of fun reading:
I read the whole article, they don't do a great job backing up their thesis, instead using anecdotes.
> His advisers argue that the blame for any slowdown rests with a Federal Reserve that last year hiked interest rates too quickly and a strong dollar that makes U.S. exports less competitive.
They're not wrong. Interest rate hikes reduce the amount of debt companies (or farmers) can take on to pay for equipment and rates that are too high are a drag on the economy. Low rates encourage growth.
They're not right, either. What's far more important for farmers and loan officers is a market for selling the product.
Normally it's sort of silly to point a finger at the president for larger market trends, but if ever culpability for market trends could be laid at a president's feet, it'd be for something exactly like a poorly executed trade war. On the other hand, the market has been on a nearly 10 year run. Some sort of slowdown was inevitable.
The real story is that the tax cuts did squat to help the economy, and instead resulted in extraordinary deficits, precisely as predicated by everybody whose professional credibility was on the line.
This is a very partisan opinion. Objectively assessing how much the tax cuts helped or didn't help the economy is impossible, but seeing what professionals predicted and then observed is not. For example the Congress has the Joint Committee on Taxation [1], whose job is to estimate the impact of various tax cuts (among other things). Their assessment was an impact on GDP of about 0.8% on average for the first decade [2]. Despite this, they also predicted a one trillion reduction in revenues overall (for the first decade). Separately, the Congressional Budget Office (which in this case has overlapping duties with the JCT), predicted a reduction in revenues of about 1.4 trillion for one decade [3] and an average impact on real GDP of 0.7% over the same period [4].
>and instead resulted in extraordinary deficits
The tax cuts did increased the deficits, but the main reason for the deficit increase is the military spending. To be more precise, the deficit increased by $194 BN between 2016 and 2018 ([5],[6]), and the military spending has increased by $123 BN over the same period, [7].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress_Joint_C... [2] https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5045
[3] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53312
[4] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53787
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_federal_bud...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_federal_bud...
[7] https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-ch...
Never thought I’d actually witness the emperor has no clothes.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/10/reuters-america-many-u-s-far...
