So in terms of macroeconomics, in my view, you can pretty much take the following as read. Inequality is at unparalleled levels in capitalist society, exceeding anything back to the times of robber barons and penury and poor houses. Bill Clinton - the last guy to run a surplus was very pro-business, slashed welfare, introduced tax cuts and punitive reforms, etc., added to inequality, but the system overall, while harmed in some regards, flourished mightily in others, and the impact of a bunch of his stuff, while swamped by Bush, was still noticeable (both good and bad) when Obama took office and even today. Hillary would've been the same as Bill. Slightly better in some regards, but hawkish, pro-business, and inclined to roll with idiotic Republican fiscal accusations and narratives than refute them. Sure she wouldn't have appointed the Mulvaneys and Millers, and DeVoses and M-no-chins, of the world. The Perrys and Pruitts. But she would've kept inequality rolling along. The Republicans would've been even more destructive (and batshit insane) in opposition than they were under Obama, so a Clinton Presidency would've been a disaster for many reasons - albeit very different to the Trump disaster of colossal ineptitude. Many of the economic damages Bush wreaked on the economy were thoroughly predictable - many were not, and yes, his 8 years thoroughly fucked things up, but many of those problems started under Clinton. The Norquists have always aimed at cutting taxes to starve government spending ignoring the tangible damages from doing so, and the beneficial multipliers from not doing so, with the aim of wrecking any functionality, and following this up with further cuts, further starvation, and repeat. The problem is the Clinton administration had already peeled off into damaging society and the economy in this manner, and moved from easy fixes into harm. Yes you can save money in sensible ways like controlling defense or healthcare pricing (while not cutting back on quality or quantity) or by finding genuine efficiency gains, or by promoting catalytic policy. But now you hit the problem that Trump is trying to actively destroy things through deliberate mismanagement, and fiscal starvation, and lack of support, and now this will be ramped up further by idiotic tax cuts for the super rich, many of whom make Gordon Gecko look like Gandhi, and they are already hiding most of what they have, sucking it out of the economy. Follow this up with lack of investment in infrastructure and growth and education and safety nets when they have already been raped and pillaged to breaking point for a generation or two, and what is already a colossal problem is about to get much, much, MUCH worse.
The Laffer curve is an insult to the fucking napkin that it was drawn on, and the Phillips curve was too simplistic in the 50's and 60's, without 99ing (and worse) the unemployment figures, and underemployment figures. The employment models are different nowadays, not to mention the demographics and personal debt loading, and every other conceivable factor. The fact that people still keep thinking the Phillips curve is going to kick in any second now - even after 10 years of unparalleled multitrillion dollar 'easing' cash injections into the economy is farcical. Split the wages half of the Phillips curve by earnings and it's more like a Newtonian prism. The well to do are doing better, everyone else is lucky to be treading water, or is actively being trodden on. Mentioning these two jokes, because they underpin current Republican magical thinking, even more than Galtian trickle-down, which made sense in the middle ages, and maybe even up till common people started owning their own land, and banks would loan to anyone they wanted to. Since then it's been nothing but a self serving lie that rich people tell themselves when they want to feel like Kings (and to stop the plebs beheading them). The people that don't subscribe to the Bannon/Norquist, starve the beast model of royally fucking up the country, believe those two curves will be the saviour of the tax cuts and here comes growth of 5% GDP to outrun the deficit, so the deficit as a percentage of GDP shrinks and becomes less of a problem. It is utter shit.
Dense and poorly written, I know.
So how does all that play into predictions. Well black swans aside, such as the fact that there's a megalomaniacal, butthurt, insane, thin-skinned, power-mad, fuckwit who thinks nothing of starving his own citizens in order to gain more nuclear weapons, and is so unbalanced he would happily start a war on the Korean Peninsula before admitting he was wrong is a massive worry, particularly for South Korea ------ and frankly, if we're going to go there, Kim Jong Un isn't much better. But that aside, the current 'administration' is abyssmal. If they're not deliberately destroying things, they're doing it because they're too dumb to realise the consequences, or choose to ignore anyone pointing out the problems. If they're not being fed baloney by vested interests, they're being radicalised into suicide bombing by zealots like Bannon.
Macroeconomically speaking things are stressed. They are extended and distended and stretched. Clinton would have been a huge concern, even without Republican douchebaggery and the alt-right trying to start a civil war. Trump is deregulating all the safety valves, some like for the environment, damage will be incremental, localised, or not obvious for a long time. This may well not be the case with the economy, even though it will be for most of the unseen stuff in the economy (which will be a lot of the harm). He is a colossal fuckwit, with too many lines of evidence to even think about, let alone voice, and this could be a massive problem, manifesting itself in any number of ways.