Anything that quotes the current administration’s words as if they are anything other than propaganda at best is an article than can be safely thrown straight into the trash.
The article lists its reasons for why they think the economy will accelerate. You might disagree with its conclusions, but it's not dependent on taking the administration's "propaganda" at face value.
>His optimism has foundation. The effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (BBB), a tax-cutting law enacted in July, will soon start to be felt. Americans will receive refunds that reflect retroactive tax cuts on income from 2025. They will also find that levies on monthly earnings have fallen. According to Piper Sandler, an investment bank, these “two years of tax cuts in one” are worth about $191bn.
My money is net positive... at first. So yeah, maybe 2026 will be good.
It’s really dangerous to assume your political enemies are stupid and incompetent, even when they likely are. Because if it turns out you are wrong, you can only cry wolf a few times at best.
The current administration has a stated goal to reindustrialize America, and even with modest success in that it’s natural for the economy to improve.
It’s pretty clearly a criminal enterprise meant to enrich the president, his family, and the already wealthy.
My point is: assume evil, not stupid.
Even when it's really tempting to think your political opponents are stupid.
The current administration feels like a venture capital firm that's gotten control of the country with the intention of extracting as much value out of it as possible before jumping ship and leaving anyone not worth at least 8 figures to suffer the aftermath.
The way our world works, that would be completely fine for the 'economy looks set to accelerate' like in this article.
A good economy is not necessarily good for the general public.
https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/the-one-big-be...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2480
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/99
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/241...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2652
Maybe examine the completeness of the sources you obtain your news from?
Two of those bills (H.R.2480 and S.99) direct the Department of Commerce to conduct studies, work with states on existing programs, and report back to Congress with the results. It sounds quite hand-wavey to me and not like we're doing anything new or exciting there. Certainly not anything that will shake up the status-quo.
S.2411: SBA will match capital from private investment funds investing in US manufacturing businesses. Sounds reasonable, but there is a cap of $500M per fund, is that enough especially given the $250M minimum required to participate? It seems like a large scale effort to bring back everything would require billions with a B. It also mentions "qualifying manufacturing projects" but I can't find anything in the bill's text on what would qualify.
H.R.2652: Changes some IRS tax law to provide incentives for companies re-homing their plants in the US. Sure, sounds fine.
None of these address the current chaos around tariffs, which seem necessary if we're going to bring everything back. Moreover, we may have already soured a lot of relationships with other countries with these shenanigans. Who's to say that foreigners want to invest in a country that's proven we elect unqualified, unserious, and corrupt people who will sever relationships and change terms whenever we feel like it? Bringing everything back will also mean higher prices (because benefits, higher wages, etc.) and that runs counter to all the messaging we heard about "Biden's inflation" on the campaign trail. How do they plan to deal with that? Tell people that it's actually fine that they're paying more because it's made in America?
Not to mention that there are other factors at play here that don't involve handing out money: the unemployment rate, human capital, and the birth rate. I personally don't believe we have enough people to work these manufacturing jobs without immigration which this admin is staunchly against[0].
0: sorta, H-1B was kept alive because of corruption but they also deported South Korean workers for show which disrupted progress on a Hyundai plant in Georgia (just as two conflicting examples)
BBB passed. The others died. This Congress passed an historically low number of bills. If reindustrialization of America depends on Congress, we are doomed.
Why not go even further into the nationalist nostalgia zone?
instead of factories everyone could be working in mining, fishing and farming again...
Whether it'll work is a different topic, but it seems silly to wish failure.
Maybe that’s good for national security (or whatever is your values-based metric), but it’s not automatically good for GDP.
You could imagine turning a few smaller states’ economies to be more like China (from the current government subsidized agriculture business) without messing with the tech and finance industries.
I don’t understand the knee jerk reaction of assuming you have to burn something down to build something.
I agree.
However, hammering the message of "this would obviously never work" is harmful.
Because if it does work, half the country is never going to listen to you again, and the situation is already well on its way there.
The claim that it is bad political strategy is also bizarre. Like, the right has been lying about policies from the dems for ages. "They are coming to force your child to transition to the other gender." Has this hindered their electoral chances? No. They have more power now than almost any time in the past fifty years.
Let me repeat, shouting "stupid Trump is horrible for the economy" from rooftops is not a great political strategy.
In the case it turns out to be false, (and there is a credible chance of that - read the article) it will seem incredibly dishonest.
Your idea of 'rural areas' is not far off from that.
The Economist does pretty objective reporting. They're about the last publication you could accuse of "sane washing". You might want to familiarize yourself with them a bit more and their Trump coverage...