The President is no progenitor of recession. Economists are well known to have different opinions about mass economic policies and effects. Accurate predictions of future recessions are not made with scientific rigor so well that the methods are verifiable and indisputably accurate. Emotion is part of the equation and it can be difficult to quantify. Sometimes they are political opinions expressed as a way to oppose a Presidential incumbent’s economic policy. and neglect national development.
Without correction the Chinese trade relationship would harm U.S. national interests. Like ancient imperial Rome that became too globalized and reached the Toynbean condition of a Universal phase (so far as it could without owning everything such as Parthia or China, the U.S. hyper-active global traders and investors tend to neglect continuing development of national interests and like ancient Rome the historical tendency is to fall.
Unlike the former great British empire the U.S.A. has a great land mass so it need not over-rely on foreign trade. Facing the EU Britain seems to have a choice between dissolution as a small part of the EU or to remain somewhat self-standing nationally and to seek more national self-reliance with new tech in addition to foreign trade.
Rectification of economics in the present era would seem to require a transformation to and renewal of infrastructure and regulating governance to one of national ecological economic sustainability of material quantitatively as well as the national standard of living. Adam Smith’ approach to capitalism expressed in the Wealth of Nations reflected economics and social needs of the day where over-population and ecological decay were not pressing concerns. As a small nation in land area England needed unregulated foreign trade to allow its vigorous traders to function in business transactions globally across an expanding empire. While individual direction and initiative are important still, the United States and even China have not got the same trade globally in proportion to a small land mass relation as did Smith’s England of the 18th century.
The President could stimulate a recession upon indolent, obstinate and recalcitrant people by causing their reactions to transpire that would slow down the national economy perhaps, yet there is plenty to work with such that business activity need not cease.
Unlike the 70’s recession that was caused in part by the lack of iron and other materials for automobile production in the mid-west as well as expanding global competition and production of fossil fuel automobiles (and numerous other reasons involving foreign and domestic affairs as well as tech and capital changes, and reallocation of resources), the present U.S. economy has impending recession only insofar as mass terrorism and ecospheric disasters to existing infrastructure are increasingly expensive to repair and as after 9–11 lead the fear factor to shrink the economy. The reliance on foreign trade is historically at least, amusing. It seems that China too wants to expropriate African and other natural resources for redistribution to itself for a variety of reasons, and of course the United States has done so too (as well as Europe). China has a huge population that is challenged to improve a standard of living and civil liberties with reliance on domestic resources so far as possible in order to conserve the planetary ecosphere. The United States has the same challenge with a smaller population it seeks to increase through legal and illegal immigration in order to de facto arrive at least at half of the Chinese challenge of sustaining a standard of living that is good for half a billion people. The fewer the people to a certain extent, the easier it is as less material resources are required.
Yes President Trump could find some way to move the economy toward recession yet I.M.O. the problem if any is in the people without ideas for national development rather than in those seeking national development and ecological economic sustainability.
In the modern world to recede might not have the same economic meaning and value as when it was first used. Then there is the fact that overseas expansion concentrates wealth in the United States for the 1%. Ordinary average wages don’t match Wall Street’s rise in value for example. The minimum wage of Americans in 1974 was $2.00 while today it is $7.75. That is just a +300% increase. Since 1970 the Wall Street index has increased far more. In 1970 it was at 832 while today it is more than 23,000.
The national public debt is not President Trump’s, it is that of both parties and an incompetent House and Senate that cannot ever balance the budget or provide services to the people affordably. People generally believe those elected are or become corrupt materialists and corporatists seeming primarily to benefit themselves and Wall Street instead of the people of the United States.