I fear that in the reasoning like in the article, many things remain unclear or nontransparent.
Maybe there is an error in picking misleading metrics and running with them?
As an example, what if you were selling a product, and you were giving people unlimited credit to buy from you. Like you suppose everybody could buy a new iPhone on credit, that never needs to be paid back.
I can imagine iPhones selling like hotcakes in that scenario.
Now the question is, in that scenario, would Apple be doing great? They'd be selling a lot of iPhones, after all. And in the books, they would have the claim to a lot of money from the people who bought on credit.
Realistically, though, they might not be doing so great, because most of their customers would end up unable to actually pay back the credit.
Maybe something similar tends to happen on a larger scale, when the article says "a weak dollar is good for the economy" - it's just that "people" (in other countries) got access to free money to buy. Whether those sales turn out to be really good ones will only become clear in the long run. Money (dollars) is just debt, so "a weak dollar" may just mean it is cheap to borrow, a ka buy stuff for almost free.
I don't know what the best metric for understanding such a situation, but it seems to me simply calculating in dollar values is rather misleading. It is a much more complicated question involving the ability of debtors to actually pay what they owe.