> This was despite Donald Trump’s best efforts to the contrary in the form of anti-growth tariffs, mass deportations and attacks on institutions like the Fed.
Why didn’t the author even take into consideration that Trump actions might have played a positive role?
The writings around economics is always this biased, it’s annoying.
Same goes with Argentina with Milei, for example: according to everyone a few years ago his initiatives should have been catastrophic… and yer nowadays Argentina is doing incredibly better and it’s essentially an unsung miracle success.
Is it WFH? I want to see economists investigate if WFH is behind this.
https://archive.is/zUgeD
Trash article. Sentences don't flow well, the writer should go back to school. also its paygated
> This was despite Donald Trump’s best efforts to the contrary in the form of anti-growth tariffs, mass deportations and attacks on institutions like the Fed.
Why didn’t the author even take into consideration that Trump actions might have played a positive role?
The writings around economics is always this biased, it’s annoying.
Same goes with Argentina with Milei, for example: according to everyone a few years ago his initiatives should have been catastrophic… and yer nowadays Argentina is doing incredibly better and it’s essentially an unsung miracle success.