A dose of sanity from Jason Furman, who argues that "the economy" is big and difficult for even someone like President Trump to knock around too much.
The link should be a gift link. The sub could discuss:
Are you relieved to read a measured economic opinion piece from someone who isn't uninformed-ly bedwetting?
Are Furman's glasses too rosy? Is he just being contrarian? Is he thinking too "short-term", and overlooking the possibility of long-term harm?
Will the war have a bigger impact than he is suggesting? I suppose this depends on how big/long you think the war will be.
Posted by hypsignathus
2 Comments
Tbh this sub has been promising me that there would dire economic consequences for a year now. The stove touching meme was spammed for ages and yet for the average American the stove still hasn’t really been touched and the dire economic consequences still haven’t materialised.
>This does not mean presidents don’t matter for the economy. I believe the economy would be even better today were it not for Mr. Trump’s reckless tariffs and his Middle East adventures. It means, however, that we should probably be more honest about judging the economy and more explicitly admitting that our opinion is based on much more than interest rates or inflation or even our own economic circumstances.
I used to be this way but I really don’t like the whole “actually things under XYZ aren’t that bad”
Not because it’s entirely false but because even 0.3% lower growth when the cause is so mindlessly stupid should cost any politician a lot of support.
There is legitimate debate about a lot of polices, massive tariffs across the board on allies and adversaries, combined with the temperament of a 5 year old in changing them is not one of those debates. Virtually every serious economist knew these would on net be bad and yet Trump did it anyway because he is a moron.
Things are far better than they were in 08/09 but they could be noticeable better if we didn’t have a moron in office and that’s upsetting.