Not yours:
"I suspect that Montana's oil usage per capita is higher than Canada's per capita consumption."
January Inflation
- Thread starter SilentBirdHunter
- Start date
"I suspect that Montana's oil usage per capita is higher than Canada's per capita consumption."
Sigh.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,490
Actually, I looked it up after the fact, and my suspicion is correct. You can look it up, if you are interested enough. There are quite a few states with higher oil consumption per capital, compared to Canada. The states that bring down the average are states, similar to New York, states, with big urban centers.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
This is a dumb discussion. Two things can be true. It’s diesel.
Back to the regular program.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
What is the amount of Tariff that was placed on Russia? America did $3 billion of trade with Russia. So, just using what was levied on imports from Canada would be a start. But, China might be a better comparison. Let’s see. Using the formula which Trump explained then 40% would be needed. Google says, hmmm, no tariff. 0%. Gee, that will send a message, for sure.For now, Trump keeps pushing peace without war. He seems to have his own ideas about how to do that.
We are not yet privy to the nuances of the ideas he's using with Putin, but on the surface, it appears that a contextual array of 1) monetary investments in Ukraine, 2) the tariff war, and 3) sanctions are being used to leverage an economic advantage that will erode Russia's interest in pursuing the war.
With respect to your objection, it's too early to decide if this will not result in US troop involvement since Putin keeps defaulting on cease-fire agreements.
Edit: I had to look up your $20 word, neoliberalism; I like it too:
Russia not on Trump's tariff list
US media quotes the White House press secretary as saying this is because of sanctions on Moscow.
www.bbc.com
There are sanctions in place, and no meaningful trade currently exists with Russia.
Yes, Biden attacked Yemen, too. He sent billions of dollars to Ukraine and stuck his head in the sand.
It's almost like they were waiting for Trump to win the election so they could avoid being blamed for starting WWIII. The current administration continues to push peace at all costs, but instead of a head-in-the-sand approach, there's an active dialogue—bizarre but active.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I can see why your daughter has trouble talking with you about this stuff.
Same here. I've enjoyed our prior conversations and typically appreciated your perspectives, specifically on economic related issues.
I took a couple days off from Hunt Talk because I am not a fan of elevated debates, I felt I was the person who increased our "debate" to a personal level with the meme and I am typically firmly against personalizing debates. It's pitiful and sours quality debate.
I apologize for elevating the debate. I believe we are at a position of agreeing to disagree.
I've not checked to see how many pages this thread has expanded since my days away, though believe this post is relevant to soften our position.
Best to you. Hope no hard feeling result from this and if so, hopefully this post eases any tension.
In the back of my mind I try to remember that these written conversations would be interpreted much differently if we were talking in person being able to read body language and exchange thoughts quickly.
I meant no harm and don’t hold grudges.
Enjoy your Sunday.
You’re right. I have this quality where I start with good intentions, gather information, and screw it up with an unfair claim from the top rope.
I could have defended my comments by saying it is offensive to think and offensive to accept truth, but that in itself is unfair and passive aggressive. This shitty posture suggests you don’t care about truth without expressly saying it.
It would have been unfair because you do care about truth, honest dialogue, and have a great amount of discernment.
I agree it’s twisted and I’m trying to purge it with more consistency and better questions instead of coming from left field. I’m sorry for this and I’m sorry you had to be on the receiving end of my dark side. Thanks for calling me out.
I think you're right.
That's likely why 'T' is pushing the Fed to hurry up and lower rates even though they didn't hit the 2% benchmark.
Rumors of looming supply chain issues as well. If true, may be inflationary.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
That’s the traditional thought. Honestly I don’t think int rates matter much. Tariffs are going to raise prices. The question is who is going to absorb them. If people have jobs they will complain but pay the higher prices. If people say “No” to the prices (because they choose to or because they have to) companies might have to eat some of the price increase, at least in the short term. Seems people are saying no to McDonalds price levels, which gives us a hint. Basically, I’m keeping an eye on jobs numbers. While traditionally a trailing indicator, they will tell us what is happening. Unfortunately jobs numbers have been getting to be less and less reliable since Covid.
Again, Trump wants rates lower because it affects the budget. Every 25bps is eating $1.25B at current treasury auction schedule. That said, Fed could lower rates and it probably wouldn’t impact much, other than headlines. We are in weird times.
peeshaunn
New member
Most funding was state level it appears (then and now) readjusted and changed from 2017 on until msft stepped in to reap the rewards.
There are a lot of pieces of this complicated economic pie. I don’t envy Powell at this time.
I’ll parrot what the main economist (group of 5) I’ve been reading/listening to think on the rate issue.
The Feds is in a tough position because the Fed needs to decide if it lowers rates to encourage employment (spur the economy) or raise rates to fight inflation.
The economists said that the Fed considers full employment as an unemployment rate of 4.6%. Any unemployment rate lower than 4.6% causes salary inflation. Current unemployment rate is 4.2%.
On the other hand, Fed wants inflation at 2%. Current inflation is 2.4%. Close to the goal but an inflation gap exists.
Due to the expected inflationary pressure from tariffs, the economist thought the Fed would choose to fight inflation. Raising rates was never mentioned but the thought was no lowering of rates in 2026.
No discussion of the effects of the rates on Federal debt because the economists wouldn’t expect the Fed to react for that reason. Politicians probably have closed door discussions about the subject with Fed board members.
I get both confidential information (job related) and have read public comments from the economic group. Private information is doom and gloom. Public information is more economist cagey with asterisks.
The decisive factor will be how long the tariff situation continues.
Yeah, and especially so in the past few months. The firing and subsequent rehiring of many federal employees skews the data which makes it difficult to identify the true macro employment trends.
