The inflation of 2021-24 was a biblical disaster for the working class, and it's nowhere near as bad now. I'd say that makes 2025 a marked improvement from the economic disaster of the last 4 years, and which was backed up in every political poll (economy was issue 1).
The monetary inflation dump in Trump's previous term was early 2020, which then took time to work through asset prices and into consumer prices. So yes the next few years are going to be worse, as the effects of the terrible policies really set in. And unlike last time, we won't have leadership at the helm who might even try pulling up until 2027. And that's assuming enough Americans get their heads on straight to vote out the congress currently rubber stamping this wanton destruction.
Yup. And again we conveniently ignore that the prior inflation was a textbook supply shock caused by COVID, and that the US response to it was quite better than the rest of the world. The difference here is the current and pending inflation will be caused by tariffs, and be a compete self-own by the current clown show.
Supply shock exacerbated by trillions of dollars in helicopter money across all levels of society. A good chunk of that was a self-own too, except for voters with the attention span of a gnat and no ability to grok economics ended up blaming the next administration.
Not accurate. US handled the supply shock inflation quite a bit better than everybody else. The trillions was enough to keep the economy afloat, and did not contribute to the inflation. There are charts you can look up. As far as the 'self own' ... I don't think most realize how powerful the propaganda arm is at this point. It is truly a firehose of bullshit and lies.
I mean, one instance of helicopter money was people getting PPP "loans" that would then have counted as taxable income, had they not gone and bought a fancy new truck/trailer with sec 179 accelerated depreciation, and supply shock making that a sellers market. Another instance was propping up the stock market because The Line must never go down, which then made a whole lot of people feel rich to spend on home improvement/expansions rather than hunkering down with what they had.
These are anecdotes, but I don't see how all of that new money would not have contribute to price inflation, but with a delay because the immediate velocity of money was low. If you want to point me to some of the graphs you're thinking I'll certainly give them a look with an open mind, but denying that fundamental dynamic feels close to the opposing propaganda that's always maintaining that monetary inflation has no bearing on price inflation.
A smaller CARES Act would have still been as helpful as it needed to be, but would have stimulated more normal growth and a bit less inflation. How much less? I don't know. Maybe 2-3 percentage points?
It's hard to draw firm conclusions because pandemic inflation is fundamentally different than ordinary inflation. Still, even though the supply side of things was unusual (caused by product shortages due to COVID), we still wouldn't have had any inflation if we'd skipped the stimulus entirely and allowed incomes and consumption to decline. It was our determination to keep people whole that produced stable consumption desires in the face of product shortages, leading to inflationary pressure.
My guess is that a stimulus sufficient to address a recession is almost always going to produce some unwanted inflation. We just don't have the capability to fine tune things precisely enough to avoid it, and it's better to err on the side of maintaining growth even if that risks more inflation than we'd like. I like the tradeoff we made for COVID (strong growth, too much inflation) way more than the tradeoff we made for the Great Recession (slow growth, normal inflation).
Both parties wilfully fund genocide and mess around with regime change. Trump does seem more restrained than most presidents, but it's hard to agree with this move.
All the Middle East calamities have begun with targeted and limited operations. Not believable anymore.
Sure. I don't feel an establishment politician would have directly attacked Iran like this, but the establishment has been sabre rattling at Iran for a long time, so who really knows.
The point is those arguments were often brought up by people justifying why they voted for Trump instead of prioritizing other issues, as if the guy represented some kind of reform rather than just a more base and brazen looter.
Some day Cloudflare will depend on GCP and GCP will depend on Cloudflare and AWS will rely on one of the two being online and Cloudflare will also depend on AWS and the internet will go down and no one will know how to restart it
Supposedly something like this already happened inside Google. There's a distributed data store for small configs read frequently. There's another for larger configs that are rarely read. The small data store depends on a service that depends on the large data store. The large data store depends on the small data store.
Supposedly there are plans for how to conduct a "cold" start of the system, but as far as I know it's never actually been tried.
The trick there is you take the relevant configs and serialize them to disk periodically, and then in a bootstrap scenario you use the configs on disk.
Presumably for the infrequently read configs you could do this so the service with frequently read configs can bootstrap without the service for infrequently read configs.
Yes, this is how I have set up systems to bootstrap.
For example a service discovery system periodically serializes peers to disk, and then if the whole thing falls down we have static IP addresses for a node and the service discovery system can use the last known IPs of peers to bring itself back up.
As streaming becomes just as bad as cable, the same alternatives back then still exist: piracy. No ads, better quality, portable format, no DRM. A consumer's dream.
The Biden admin not only kept the first Trump admin's China tariffs in place but significantly expanded them under the same law. Was Biden acting like a king or does this analogy only go one way?
In the linked Biden press release I see an announcement of tariff changes under section 301 and section 232. From today's article:
>Other tariffs imposed under different powers, like so-called Section 232 and Section 301 levies, are unaffected, and include the tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles.
It seems that Biden did not, at least in the instance you link to, do the thing that the courts have ruled against today.
The administration has previously contemplated imposing duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows for tariffs that counter unfair foreign trade practices. That is the provision Trump used to underpin his first term tariffs on China and is considered to be on firmer legal footing than IEEPA. So they'll likely just use that justification going forward.
They’ve already mentioned that in the EOs - it’s what Trump’s first administration used - but it’s more limited and slower than he wants. That requires them to follow a process where they identify a trade barrier and first attempt to negotiate it, and it’s limited to trade barriers. That’s a lot of work to use to demand concessions individually from each country world – these are not people who like to do their homework – and it doesn’t cover non-trade pretexts like fentanyl or failing to confiscate some Vietnamese farmers’ land so his family can build a golf course and resort. Once they concede that it has to follow the usual legal process, they’re going to have to give up the most appealing ways to monetize his office.
You called GDPR a 'trade barrier' as a justification for tariffs against the EU so it's extremely obvious you're not arguing from any position of good faith at all here.
> You called GDPR a 'trade barrier' as a justification for tariffs against the EU so it's extremely obvious you're not arguing from any position of good faith at all here.
The least interesting commentary you can imagine is of or from a country's closest friends. From many perspectives Europe is indistinguishable from America, except from being a little poorer.
Let's see America's (or Europe's!) earnest criticism of Kinshasa. C'mon, show us who you really are. I promise you it will only benefit humanity.
It’s almost like you don’t understand the concept of doing things in moderation and abusing a granted privilege - you know, the origin of the phrase “this is why we can’t have nice things”. That is, what is happening now is different, and we all know it is different, hence the unanimous court ruling.
Did Biden do that unilaterally claiming that a half-century economic trend was an EMERGENCY!!! or did he follow the legal process and negotiate with the Congress? They’ve delegated some powers but that’s not carte blanche.
No, he did not. The authority for the current tariffs were drawn from an 1976 act of congress (an amendment to the Trading With Enemies Act of 1917 and a new National Emergencies Act) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
Incorrect. Biden’s actions were based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which outlines a process for enacting tariffs where unfair trade practices have been identified.
This case was attempting to resolve the question of whether Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act was legal. They did note that he has other, more limited tariff powers delegated by Congress which are legal to use as long as he follows the law.
I believe you are correct. Biden used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Trump has used the 1974 act, but he's also used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which is what the trade court just ruled on. My understanding is the Trump admin's strategy of putting a tariff on every country as an opening to negotiations doesn't fly under the 1974 act, which only allows placing tariffs on a country if there is evidence that it has broken fair trade practices in the US.
Biden used executive authority on tariffs repeatedly, the same method Trump is using. And you're totally incorrect, Biden maintained the existing IEEPA tariffs on China that were imposed in Trump's first term.
As far as I'm aware, Trump's first term tariffs on China were Section 301 tariffs, and even though he floated the idea of IEEPA tariffs, he never actually invoked IEEPA in his first term [1]. Every article I can find about Biden extending and/or increasing Trump's China tariffs that mentions the legal authorization says it's under Section 301 of the 1974 act [2, 3, 4]. If you're aware of any evidence to the contrary, please share.
Not repealing an action isn’t the same as supporting it. It doesn’t make sense to arbitrarily repeal tariffs without a coordinated draw down of tbr other party.
You're literally replying to a comment putting in a great detail which statues were used in case of Trump tariffs this time and in case of Biden tariffs (and Trump to the extent) last time. Just saying "this is executive authority on tariffs" doesn't equate these usages, it is important what laws does this authority rely on.
Those tariffs were imposed under Trump's authority given to him by Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which, in brief, allows the Executive to impose tariffs if a foreign nation's trade practices are affecting national security. Crucially, this determination is not made by the president, but rather the Department of Commerce.
WhatsApp isn't E2EE by default either, since default flow pushes you to backup your key to Google Drive.
Signal isn't E2EE, given the security blunder in which private images from your gallery were sent to random contacts (which indicates a scary state management situation in the apps, this isn't easy to do). E2EE implies that you purposely send content to specific people which is encrypted, not that your app sends potentially embarrassing or intimate pictures to your boss behind your back. That blunder is unforgivable.
No, it is not the corrupt money laundering that makes it biblical but the implications of Cryptocurrency backing the dollar and the complete ability to restrict your ability to buy or sell that makes it biblical.
Expedites are available for all USCIS filings and while it's worth it to request it here, your reason isn't like to meet the expedite requirements, which are listed on the USCIS website.
Is the correct term "Expedites", or "Expeditions"? Legal terminology seems to break language rules... The term for some (plural) things being expedited would be expeditions, but it seems from your response that, in legal terms, this would be expedites. This doesn't sound right. No source I could find agrees with the term "Expedites" as "plural of expedite". It generally returns something on the lines of "A third-person singular simple present indicative form of the verb "expedite.""
Receiving millions of dollars in the past doesn't necessarily make being laid off today less painful. What if he invested those millions of dollars in Enron, Lehman Brothers, or Mt. Gox?
reply