Subject: Re: Macroeconomics of the election
As you can see by the examples above and many more, a bull in a china shop, even a well trained one, can wreak incredible damage.

Sure - but only in that china shop.

My point wasn't that Trump can't do damage - just that the scope of damage he can do is relatively small compared to the macroeconomy and the factors that affect the macroeconomy. Like, 98% of the things that affect the macroeconomy are stuff that the President doesn't control. The President has some influence around the margins of things, but almost everything that affects the macroeconomy is stuff other than the President and his portfolio.

There are a few specific areas that he's got far more influence on. International matters, like tariffs and foreign policy. But even then, he's constrained by lots of other factors. So while the President might have ideas about what economic relations with China should look like, China's got their own ideas - and both of them are shaped by the preferences and actions of literally billions of firms and consumers and workers and financiers in both countries, and around the world. The President has a voice in all that stuff, and it's one of the most powerful ones - but whatever he tries to do will be constrained by the actions and decisions of countless others.

It's easy to construct a "for want of a nail" scenario where one decision by the President changes the macroeconomy - but I personally am somewhat suspicious of that view of the economy. Who the President is important, but so are a lot of other things, and the other things collectively are just much, much, MUCH more important than what the President is trying to do. So while Trump certainly could decimate the poultry processing industry or start a trade war with China, at the end of the day the macroeconomy is going to largely be driven by factors other than him.