I can't read the article, so my response is in generic terms.
In terms forward looking at the economy, to be honest, I am probably one of the last you would want an asnwer from.
I am not going to get into virtue politics and try and keep this to economics.
Chump is using two main levers - tariffs and stimulus, the latter being code word for increasing debt and government spending to stimulate the economy. It is sort of applying the foot brake and the throttle of a motorcycle simultaneously to get a balanced and steady result. He has fiscal policy levers; he is attempting to gain access to monetary policy levers, but let's leave that out of it for now.
Economically, he seems to be using the latter to ease the pain of the former. With his political agenda of making America great again, and trying to reclaim the lost economic activity of domestic manufacturing or production, these levers can be weilded as an effective tool in achieving those aims, but only for so long. And there are existing structural issues with the US (and most major western) economies, that length of time before it comes back to bite is shortened.
At the heart of it is the theory of price equilibrium (a google sesarch will give a concise but good AI explanation) It explains how prices are correlated to supply and demand. Assume the market for, I dunno, T shirts is in equilibrium - that is the price is set such that the amount of T shirts willing to be consumed by consumers is the same at which suppliers are willing to sell them. You have price equilibrium of supply and demand. If suppliers decide to increase the supply (say to become a dominant player in the market) and the demand does not change, in order to sell the higher volume of T shirts, the sellers will have to start discounting T shirts to a price where consumers are willing to buy the increased volume of T shirts. And of course, vice versa; if demand goes up and supply stays the same, consumers are willing to pay more per T Shirt for that same supply. There are other factors, such as price elastcity, lag, etc.. but let's keep it simple.
According to this theory, though, one of two things will happen. If it is a permanent move one way, the price equilibrium will shift. This will usually happen where there is a constraint to one side of the equation. For example, if supply increases, but demand cannot (I dunno - the nuber od train rides one can take in a day??), and suppliers are willing to the increased supply at that price, then the price will stay there. More often what happens is there is a constraint on supply and the price forever changes for the worse (assuming no substitute goods or services are available). The other impact is that where the demand and supply if perfectly correlated (fully elastic), the increase or decrease in price will eventually lead to the supplier or consumer increasing or decreasing supply/demand accordingly which impacts the other's willingness to supply or consume at that price, and prices will eventually revert to their original equilibrium where both sides are willing to supply or consume the same volumes at that price.
This is really important, because although we talk about the price of goods and services in this context, money or currency also has a price. And that price is not the exchange rate; it is the inflation rate. Inflation = a lessenign ov the value of money - it is not worth as much as it was. Deflation = increasing value of money - it is more valuable that the goods or services it is being exchanged for than it was, say yesterday. However, inflation is far more prevalent than deflation - so money is forever devaluing, right? Well, yes, and there are two reasons for it. The first is government interventions - monetary policy usually. Governments don't like inflation, because it usually results in a recession or worse. Although in theory, as prices drop, people will buy more of whatever it is, there comes a point where it is not economic for the suppliers to sell at that price. But, a quirk to the price equilibrium theory, when there is deflation, people will put off buying stuff because they know they can get it cheaper in the future. That collapse in demand leads to recessions and depressions.
The second reason is simple - there is usually an increasing money supply in an economy. And where you have more of something that you want to exchange for something else that has value to you, you will offer more of that something you have. That is you will increase your supply of money in relation for the other thing you want that has had no increase in supply. The good example is the housing market. Remember when you or your parents could buy an average house in an average suburb for about 3.5 times annual salaries. Today it is something like 7 or more times salary. Why? This may sound mysoginistic, but women entring the workforce enmasse. What that did is put more moeny into to system and into purchasers hands. Supply of housing is relatively stable, especially in established areas, so what happens - you as a family with two working parents instead of one give more money to the seller as you are in competition with other buyers (demand). The net effect in real terms is both parents are now working but still no better off.
So, if Chump increases tariffs, the price of the goods/services imported into America are higher and in theory, the consumer will want to buy less of them. But why do that? Because, the price at which they can be sold fom domestic manufacturers economically is higher and to try and even out demand between importers and domestic manufacturers is price (assuming quality/specification is on par). In other words, you are artifically cheapning money against imported goods. As I mentioned, assuming the quality, specification, amenity etc is simiar, responsible citizens would look to buy locally made, but at least through simple distributions, there would be a higher percentage of the domestically made product sold. Of course, there is a lag here, because where there was no manufacturing, it takes time to get it up and running.
And that's where the stimulus comes in. It can be freebies to the people - as was the inflation reduction act. And some of Chump's is.. But it can also be setting the barriers to entry into the sector lower to get investment moving quicker and manufacturing churning stuff out quicker, too. That hass a knock on effect of creating employment and when there is a ready supply of labour, that will be a very good thing, because it won't increase costs (salaries) too much. Once construction is over, depending on the automation levels, there will be some permanent, sustained increase in employment over time.
But now you have a lot of money now artifically entering the economy. More people are employed, which is a good thing and they can buy more stuff. Demand increases, but because there is more money in the system. Inflation is initially kept in check because there is usually some capacity in an economy to absorb short term changes in demand and supply without material impact on prices. Suppliers can supply more to meet the demand (or maybe there was already an oversupply). Everything is nice. However, once that capacity is used up, things start to change. Suppliers are now in a position where there is excess demand over normal supply volumes - the previous equilibrium price. What happens? People with more money still want the stuff and if suppliers can';t or don't want to increase the supply, they charge more. Consumers enter into comeptition with each other and pay the higher prices. You have inflation - or devaluing money.. because the money supply was increased.
The money supply increase can be "natural"; i.e. a product of normal economic activity or it can be through government injection of new money - stimulus. This is usually done through a) printing money (bad - look at Germany in the 30s) or debt (less bad, and used properly as well as contained, can be very good). Either way, if done to excess, it is not sustainable, because, after all, the piper has to be paid (pied piper, not the aircraft company). Just look at quantitative easing, which was increasing the money supply.. it was really good to start with as it stabilised everything by gradually increasing the money supply. But they left the taps on for too long and inflation went ballistic. If they had of started turning off the taps earlier and took longer to do it, there would have been little impact on inflation. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
What Chump is doing is short term lever pulling.. He is creating that cosy bubble to protect everyone now. He will be in lag territory as the economy has capacity to absorb it and things will be humming along nicely. It's nice and artificial, but reality will kick in. With his attempt to get the levers of monetary policy, which can artifically increase inflation through interest to keep the lid from blowing off, influencing lower interest rates in the face of an artifically booming economic engine is a recipe for disaster as there will be more money floating in the system because it will be easy to get hold of.
Enter the credit multiplier, which even further increases the money supply. What happens is I earn say $100. I put $50 in the bank. Multiply that by say a million people. Three is $50m in the bank. Now I want to start a business. So I borrow $1m. Others want to biy a house, a car, a holiday of a lifetime, etc. In the end, $45m of that money is lent out. The economy is now $95m. Now, the people/businesses we have spent the money on bank some of that money, after expenses, etc. Say, $20m is banked back as deposits, the other is spend on their expenses, and those that were paid bank say $10m of that.. The system now has the original $50m + the $45m lent but still has $30m in the bank and ready to lend out. And so the cycle goes until it essentially runs to a crtical reduction at which the economy can't sustain itself, and people start defaulting and the whole thing unravels (of course that is an overdramatisation). Say the borrowing rate is on average 10%. It makes it reasonably difficult to service large loans.
Now Chump comes along and adds $50M to my economy. Whoa.. As a bank I don't want it sitting in my accounts as a liability - it is costing me money. So I want it lent out. But initially, demand hasn't changed, so what do I do? I reduce my interest rates to shift it. And this increases demand for lending, further pumping money into the economy and keeping the cycle going. But, with even more money in the economy, the same population can pay more for the same stuff, and eventually inflation will skyrocket. Then things get more expensive, and eventually people can no longer afford it as the money creation cycle slows. Then demand drops, employment drops, taxes drop, etc, The government has debt and the piper is coming along for its next payment.
The proiblem with Chump is he looks to be weilding these levers for very short term political gain and the debt to the piper ever increasing. One day the piper will come calling and the house of cards that has now been built, rather than the solid foundation will fall.
