TexasCHLforum.com

Interesting tidbit surfaced about what was touted as the stellar unemployment results for July. Turns out that 82% of the jobs filled in July--not a typo: 82%--were by individuals in the 13 to 19 age group. Guess it should have been obvious, but I never considered it. Companies can't fill low-paying jobs...and then...summer vacation.

In the same interview, also logically, we were warned not to make much of the positive August inflation report. Same reason. August is an anomaly and its result almost always needs to be adjusted later. The reason? Back-to-school spending. We can't send Susie to school without books, supplies, and maybe a new pair of shoes. So consumer spending always spikes...temporarily.

It took Reagan to clean-up the astounding inflation of the Carter administration. We need a Reagan in 2024.

What's so fascinating about this White House is that it seems in such a shambles that that major players aren't able to keep on the same page. Yesterday Uncle Joe for some reason decided to resurrect the already-failed "Ultra-Maga" trope, deciding to go one step further and call everyone who supported Trump a "semi-fascist." This from an administration that has shown itself to be essentially dictatorial; desirous of a centralized autocracy; uses all means political, legal, and public opinion to suppress opposition; subordinates interests of the individual taxpayer to the agenda of the ruling party; and promotes governmental regimentation of the economy. Wait, what? Aren't those all characteristics of fascism?

Then Joe took (and fumbled) rare impromptu questions before boarding a plane. He simultaneously said that the economy was stronger than it's been in a long time, but that people were hurting economically. Figure that one out. But this was, again, his justification for the student loan bailout (the largest single expenditure by presidential fiat in the history of the country) that non-administration economists are estimating could end up costing $500 billion, not $300 billion. He said it won't increase inflation and will actually stimulate the economy. You know, by making taxation of the janitors in a medical school help pay for the tuition of the soon-to-be physicians. Because, you know, class and social equity. Estimates are that the bailout will end up costing, in one way or another, every taxpayer and additional $2,000+ per year.

But the economy is great! You just don't realize it is, that's all. All the people who forecast that the inflation reduction act will have, at best, a 0.3% improvement in inflation after 2024 or, at worst, increase inflation due to deficit spending, well, they're all wrong. They're also wrong that the student loan bailout will wipe out any possible improvement from the act and deepen inflation. Only Susan Rice and the rest of Biden's handlers know anything.

But wait. At the same time Uncle Joe was doing as bad a job as Karine Jean-Pierre at handling questions--but he was very definitive that the economy was strong and that, hey, we had zero inflation last month--his Fed Chair, Jerome Powell, was speaking..



So...wait. "Reducing inflation is likely to require a sustained period of below-trend growth. Moreover, there will very likely be some softening of labor market conditions. While higher interest rates, slower growth, and softer labor market conditions will bring down inflation, they will also bring some pain to households and businesses. These are the unfortunate costs of reducing inflation."

Biden: My administration has been better for the economy than Trump's ever was. We're doing great!
Powell: There will be pain. It's coming.

Powell essentially said that the September meeting would bump the interest rate at least another 75 basis points. And he gave no hint that the increases would stop there. Investors certainly understood and believed Powell more than they did Biden. The Dow closed down a precipitous 1,007 points and the NASDAQ fell 3.9%.

Economists projected recently that Great Britain would be in a recession by Q4. The latest price-hikes there for consumer energy pretty much cements the deal. If we don't get our act together--as in put a leash on Susan Rice and the Biden administration by taking both the House and Senate--it's gonna be coming our way very soon...

Britain to see 80% spike in energy bills as crisis deepens
https://apnews.com/article/inflation-bo ... 8e1db0f637

"U.K. residents will see an 80% increase in their annual household energy bills, the country’s energy regulator announced Friday, following a record 54% spike in April. That will bring costs for the average customer from 1,971 pounds ($2,332) a year to 3,549 pounds [US$4,169].... And bills are expected to rise again in January to 4,000 pounds [US$4,699]."

That January 2023 estimate would equal a US$392 per month average.

powerboatr wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 9:06 am
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/i ... uction-act
"Estimated Effects on Inflation"

We estimate that the Inflation Reduction Act as passed by the Senate would have a very modest impact on inflation over the next decade. The Act produces some upward pressure on prices in 2023 and 2024, but its effects are too small to meaningfully affect measured the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation rate as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The Act would reduce annual inflation by around 0.1 percentage points in about five years, once major deficit-reducing provisions of the legislation are fully implemented, but the Act would have no measurable impact on inflation after 2028. All these point estimates are not statistically different from zero, indicating a low level of confidence that the legislation would have a measurable impact on inflation."

Political tip: If you want to quickly get an idea of the content of a bill proposed by a large number of democrat co-sponsors, just carefully ready the title assigned to the bill. Then reverse it 180 degrees because its result will have pretty much the opposite effect of what the title says it will do.