Economy US Inflation hits a 12 month low of 6.5%

[Saye_mc]

I would rather you quote me than inaccurately paraphrase me.

ok but before I take 29 minutes to compile the posts I just want to make it clear that you're claiming that you never said the numbers of Trumps economy were the result of Obamas economic policies?

I'm not wrong am I.. because there's other things I can do for the next 29 minutes my friend

 

[Saye_mc]

@Jack V Savage I'm not conceding or waiving the white flag but I thoroughly enjoy everytime we squabble here ..

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage I'm not conceding or waiving the white flag but I thoroughly enjoy everytime we squabble here ..

OK, just post the quotes. Or do the honorable thing and admit that you misstated my views.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Not a controversial statement, is it?

For example:

What metrics are you looking at that don't show that the economy was terrible during Trump's presidency?

Feels , he doesn't have numbers .

 

[Dalarna3]

I mean that's easily explained, we have an aging population.

 

[Rational Poster]

Concession accepted.

 

[Blayt7hh]

Anyone else find it funny that you can immediately tell the story the person making the graph is trying to tell about inflation by the scale of the visual representation? That one on the far right is like, 1/5 as tall as the big one in the middle - inflation must be super, super low! It's less than half the height of the month before - what a massive decrease!

Yeah that is a purposefully deceptive graph. That shit should always be called out

 

[Jack V Savage]

Feels , he doesn't have numbers .

It's not even debatable. I think whether Trump's actions had a net positive impact on the economy is debatable. You have to weigh the demand boost from his Fed appointments and the higher deficits against the tariffs and COVID response. I think it's pretty negative, but it's possible to make the case the other way if you don't believe he could have done much better on COVID. But the fact that the economic numbers for his presidency were really bad (and again I don't see that as a good measure) cannot be disputed.

 

[SKYNET]

The Dems know what they are doing

First time we are in agreement. Negligence as an excuse sailed away between 18-24 months ago

 

[nostradumbass]

Right, December, I was speaking in a general sense because you left it out, but it's clearly the lowest in a long time so doesn't seem right that it is not included in an up-to-date thread. December was in the 6's, you can't not include that. It's the lowest since like Oct 2021 or somewhere that far back. You can't not include that lol. One 5 second google search would give you a more updated chart, one is even in the OP. That was my point about fired. Dudes would be like "but bruh" and that would be that.

But, even one step further, inflation has literally declined 6 months straight now. Any way that can be seen, a negative is not one of them. I remember not too long ago the doom and gloom was the dominant narrative.

Do you think I made the graph? December isn't on there because it was just released this morning, and the "up to date one" in the OP gives the YoY without even giving where it was a year ago, and starts the damn thing at 6% to intentionally make the bars smaller. It's a single data point that you just said yourself is till higher than it was

You don't think there's any way that 6.5% inflation from an already high number and have massive interest rates is negative? It was 1.4% when Biden took office, and 2.5% the year before that. We get that you have to pretend paying $3.30/gallon of gas and $10 for eggs is awesome when democrats are in charge just because a few months ago was even worse, but robbing 14 houses last month doesn't make you not a robber just because you robbed 50 houses a few months ago. It isn't "but robberies are actually going down thanks to me, and there's no way to spin that into a negative".

 

[Yehudim]

I mean that's easily explained, we have an aging population.

There has been a lot of studies on it, and there's a lot of young men not working for whatever reason, particularly white men which is interesting because it goes against cliches about living on welfare.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There has been a lot of studies on it, and there's a lot of young men not working for whatever reason, particularly white men which is interesting because it goes against cliches about living on welfare.

Prime age LFP peaked in 1999 at 84.6%. Most recent figure is 82.4%. That gap is probably mostly just more people at the higher end of the age distribution/early retirees. Another portion is graduate school. Not a lot of room left for young men who, just don't feel like working, God bless'em.

 

[Gas121]

Inflation may be coming down but the elevated prices will remain which means more squeeze on wages. It’s a grim scenario we have been left with tbh. Groceries are still at record levels. Rent is sky high and house prices.

Welcome to the new normal.

 

[MMAisGod]

Inflation may be coming down but the elevated prices will remain which means more squeeze on wages. It’s a grim scenario we have been left with tbh. Groceries are still at record levels. Rent is sky high and house prices.

Welcome to the new normal.

I thought housing and rent was coming down recently on a national level? I need to check again but could have swore I heard it not long ago.

 

[Yehudim]

Prime age LFP peaked in 1999 at 84.6%. Most recent figure is 82.4%. That gap is probably mostly just more people at the higher end of the age distribution/early retirees. Another portion is graduate school. Not a lot of room left for young men who, just don't feel like working, God bless'em.

That’s another thing, the absolute numbers are big because it’s a big country, but in terms of percentage, it’s a really small number of able bodied men not working. Although I wonder how many people on disability are working age men milking the system or are on a BS disability. Not enough where we need reform and potentially fuck over all the disabled people, but enough to steal millions from the taxpayer.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

It's not even debatable. I think whether Trump's actions had a net positive impact on the economy is debatable. You have to weigh the demand boost from his Fed appointments and the higher deficits against the tariffs and COVID response. I think it's pretty negative, but it's possible to make the case the other way if you don't believe he could have done much better on COVID. But the fact that the economic numbers for his presidency were really bad (and again I don't see that as a good measure) cannot be disputed.

The crux of the issue is that if the roles were reversed and it were Hillary in the white house you know exactly what he would be saying.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah that is a purposefully deceptive graph. That shit should always be called out

The chart comes straight off Trading Economics, which isn't a political site at all and mostly just provides various international data series. No change in how they do it or anything. On the same site, if you zoom out to 5Y, the Y axis starts at 0, and 10Y at -2, and at 25Y at -4.

It's a myth that Y axes should always start at 0, though I would agree you'd want to be on alert if it doesn't. Sometimes the numbers you're looking at are within a narrow range well above 0 and small variations relative to the full range are significant. In this case, it's debatable what the right choice is. But it's 100% not a deliberately deceptive, and I really doubt that anyone is actually deceived by anything. It's just a sign of the kind of pathological distrust that infects these discussions in some circles.

Anyone who thinks it's some kind of leftist site can look through it:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi

Generally one of the most useful sites for economic data, along with FRED and a couple of others.

 

[Dalarna3]

Concession accepted.

 

[ocfightfan]

Not a controversial statement, is it?

For example:

What metrics are you looking at that don't show that the economy was terrible during Trump's presidency?

As usual Jack is being intellectually dishonest. Trumps numbers would be significantly better than even Eisenhower's on that chart of yours if he didn't have to clean up Obama's regulatory pillow on the face and didn't get blindsided by the Faucidemic and BLM race riots.

 

[Blayt7hh]

The chart comes straight off Trading Economics, which isn't a political site at all and mostly just provides various international data series. No change in how they do it or anything. On the same site, if you zoom out to 5Y, the Y axis starts at 0, and 10Y at -2, and at 25Y at -4.

It's a myth that Y axes should always start at 0, though I would agree you'd want to be on alert if it doesn't. Sometimes the numbers you're looking at are within a narrow range well above 0 and small variations relative to the full range are significant. In this case, it's debatable what the right choice is. But it's 100% not a deliberately deceptive, and I really doubt that anyone is actually deceived by anything. It's just a sign of the kind of pathological distrust that infects these discussions in some circles.

Anyone who thinks it's some kind of leftist site can look through it:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi

Generally one of the most useful sites for economic data, along with FRED and a couple of others.

I’m aware that the axis doesn’t need to start in zero. But you can’t tell me that the axis’ starting point and units of measure don’t look hand picked to draw that graph that way on purpose.

It could be coincidence, but without a source and with a partisan TS, most people would dismiss it and I don’t blame them.