We know. We all know. Everyone with a basic understanding of how money works knew this. We knew before he was even elected. Unfortunately we’re a country made mostly of highly confident morons.
I saw some clips yesterday on MS NOW where they were interviewing people at a Trump rally. These people were decked out in Trump gear from head-to-toe. They asked them what they thought and of course they said they're happy with the past two years. When asked why, they would say something like "things are finally getting done". But then when pushed, they couldn't list a single thing. One guy made some generic statement about how 'Dems need to wake up' and when pushed, he couldn't give any details about what that meant. True morons.
I think Trump has been a total failure and I could have cobbled together a decent on-the-spot answer in that scenario. If you have nothing smart to say, at least have the sense to yell 'you're fake news!' and walk away.
It's literally all emotion with those people. There's not a single ounce of logic among magas. I don't see a way forward with such a large percentage of the population completely divorced from reality, unable to determine cause and effect.
I've said this many times, but I simply don't get the fascination with Trump. I thought Obama was an overall good POTUS but I didn't/don't worship him. I can and will openly criticize Obama without hesitation. Nobody is all good or all bad. We should call out mistakes/failures and corruption by our leaders. That's how we tell their future replacements what we're willing to accept.
We joke about Trump being their "God", but there is a lot of truth in it. To them, he in infallible. He can literally do no wrong. If he loses in court, the judge is a radical liberal. If a news story is negative, it's fake news. He does things to make their lives measurably worse and yet he still gets a pass. It truly is a cult.
I'd have much more respect for MAGA if they said "We know Trump is a moron, but we feel he is taking us in the right direction as a country so we're willing to tolerate the non-stop nonsense that comes from the White House." And I suspect many non-MAGA Republicans do feel that way, but they're just not allowed to publicly say he's a moron.
Obama’s changes to remove the lifetime maximum limit for medical insurance literally changed my life. Really impactful for so many Americans. Yet we don’t worship him, fly Obama flags or ignore poor decisions. The cognitive dissonance of these Trump lovers is scary.
Conservative mindset judges people based on membership of the in-group, rather than morality of actions like the liberal mindset does. So it doesn't really matter what someone is doing, as long as they keep up appearances and stay in favor, everything can be explained away. It isn't any reflection of reality, just vibes. And as the leader of the in-group, Trump can do no wrong in their eyes.
Exactly. To dems a pedophile is bad because they rape kids. To republicans, a pedophile is only bad when they arent republican, if they are then its ok.
> Conservative mindset judges people based on membership of the in-group
i understand conservative psychology as the scarcity mindset: we are at risk of death in the next five minutes, so we don't have time to debate or to think or fact check, we just have to act, probably with violence against anyone we don't recognize, and we need to coordinate as a group so we need a leader, and we don't have time to choose an appropriate one, so we all have to fall behind whoever seems decisive, even if they're not making any sense, and anyone who doesn't go along with the group needs to get hit in the head with a rock.
This is an very true point. I once had a coworker who defended a corrupt politician (corrupt as in, tried and convicted for crimes and also had multiple other scandals) because he went to her church and that made him a "good man." In that specific case he was a Democrat, so a conservative mindset doesn't always adhere to strict political labels, but in general GOP voters seem much more susceptible to it.
it used to be that if you were a white male in america, you get a job and a house and a wife basically for free
now you have to work for those things
trump said he could bring us back to the good old days when you could not hire someone because their skin is brown and women couldn't have money so they had to be your house slave in order to sleep indoors
the thing i can only barely wrap my mind around is why certain groups who don't seem to benefit from this also consider him a god, such as:
I think there is an underlying "back to the 50's" dream for conservatives. But so much of it is rooted in things that simply don't exist anymore.
Middle class women had fewer options in the 50's. Not literally, as they could go to college, stay unmarried, work full-time, etc. But there was a lot of pressure for them to take certain paths, like getting married young, staying at home with kids, remain in bad marriages, etc. That pressure does not exist now, at least in urban areas.
Middle class white men had less competition for skilled jobs in the 50's. Now they need to compete against women and minorities.
In the 50's, American companies couldn't give your middle class job to someone in India.
A single middle class breadwinner could support a family and buy a house in the 50's. Now things are often tight with two breadwinners.
In the 50's, there were also other factors helping a boom like the GI bill and VA loans for returning WWII soldiers. There were stronger unions. Pensions were much more common, so you could retire at a realistic age and not be required to save every dollar possible while working.
The Democratic establishment has long had its head in the sand regarding Hispanic political leanings. Turns out they tend to be rather conservative socially and politically, outside of immigration, and even that preference disappears after a couple of generations.
>I don't see a way forward with such a large percentage of the population completely divorced from reality, unable to determine cause and effect.
We just need a coalition of sane people large enough to make sure these people don't have influence in deciding where our government goes. For a generation at minimum
> When asked why, they would say something like "things are finally getting done".
Thankful that a younger politician like Mamdani took a hint from comments like these. There's plenty of inattentive non-MAGA middle-of-the-road voters who also think that elected officials get the job and then sit around doing nothing but collecting a paycheck. Moving forward, successful elected officials have to make a show of demonstrating that they're actually getting stuff done, even if a lot of it is just performative.
This was one of my biggest frustrations with Biden. Did I think he could do the job of POTUS at his age? Yes, but with the big caveat of only becasue he surrounded himself by serious, experienced staff. And I'm sure he did "lean" on his staff. But Biden couldn't do core parts of the job like selling his accomplishments and future plans to the public. His speeches were painful to watch and I honestly muted the sound most of the time. And that aspect of the job is absolutely critical to campaigning for a second term.
I'm not making excuses for the economy under Biden, but I always felt there was a decent story to tell and Biden was simply incapable of telling it. When he spoke about the economy, it came off as dismissive. If you're trying to convince voters the economy isn't that bad, that requires a lot of context. The funny thing is Trump is doing the exact same thing right now and telling voters to not believe their lying eyes about the economy.
Part of the issue is it took 3 big accomplishments to even break through something positive in the news for the biden admin.
Made jobs! oh thats gonna cause inflation to go up. Less jobs. Oh thats bad for the economy. ETC ETC
The billionaire owned media ecosystem is very much against dems.
Since time immemorial dems simply relied on the media to tell the truth to win votes. They stopped doing this around obamas time and even worse during trumps. Theyll weigh two unequal things like biden having files from when he was VP in his garage to trump keeping top secret stolen files that were requested back in an area where it was easily accessible to tens of thousanads.
In the meantime, the republicans not relying on this built a whole ecosystem of self reinforcing power of propaganda thats with their voters every day. Funded and owned by billionaires.
There are many aspects to the Biden/Harris loss, and I don't disagree with what you said. But I still a major factor is Biden personally needed to make the case and he wasn't up to that task at his age. While capable, Harris didn't do it either, but I suspect her campaign made the strategic decision to let Trump's massive unpopularity do the heavy lifting.
I mean agreed. But the presidency is running the country. Running for president is an entire different job that biden seemed unable to have the energy for while he ran the country.
Anything kamala said or did was crowded out by social media owned by billionaires who all showed up to trumps inauguration and sat where family sits. Thats telling to me.
I read somewhere if you got your news from tiktok you were about 10 points more likely to vote republican.
I'm tough on Kamala but a) any Dem replacing Biden would have struggled with the incredibly short campaign timeline and b) hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure at the time playing it safe while letting Trump say things to hurt himself seemed like a good strategy. I can see how it would be tempting to sit back and let him do the work, knowing that voters don't exactly love you either.
But I think her team underestimated how big of a drag the economy was on her campaign. She needed to criticize Biden (but stop short of throwing him under the bus) and talk about going a different direction. She wasn't really in a position to do that and be believable as Biden's VP. But would any Dem who replaced Biden have done that, at least to the extent needed? Probably not.
And there’s a difference between difficulty through speech through to some old age and a speech impediment, but his message was still coherent and factual.
Compared to Trump, where it is incoherent, violent, and largely about himself. But yet Trump can say they’re eating the cats and transgender kids are playing in the wrong sport and suddenly we’re both siding this BS.
> And there’s a difference between difficulty through speech through to some old age and a speech impediment, but his message was still coherent and factual.
>
>
This. The dementia thing still rankles me. He never had dementia. Losing your place or misspeaking isnt dementia.
Remember when the news reported on a parkinsons specialist was visiting the white house. Implying it was for biden. Only for it to come out that biden wasnt even there for half the visits the doctor came for.
>Compared to Trump, where it is incoherent, violent, and largely about himself. But yet Trump can say they’re eating the cats and transgender kids are playing in the wrong sport and suddenly we’re both siding this BS.
Yea it seems like republicans always get the benefit of the doubt and dems have to perfect. As they say dems fall in love, republicans fall in line. I had hoped we learned from 2016 to at least fall in line some. But nope here we are.
It’s always upset me about republicans it’s their one quality that makes the formidable. They fall in line no matter what.
Honestly dems should be two factions. And a candidate will never be able to bring both together. The moderate dem and the much further left liberal dem.
Take Bernie and Hillary as a figure head of this example. Once Bernie was out the Bernie supports couldn’t fall in line and sat out in droves. Because it wasn’t far enough left. So dems lost. Whereas republicans largely voted the same, your aforementioned “get in line”. In 2016 election trump had 63million votes. Thats only 3 million more than Romney had in 2012. And McCain had ~60 million votes as well. So trump didn’t even win it, dems gave it away.
And we continue to do this over and over. Then the most aggravating part is people bitch and moan but don’t vote or vote friggin independent because “both sides”.
This is an area where I can see politicians who excel at the podcast format getting a huge leg up. It would do a lot of good for these elected officials to sit down for regular hour-long Q&As with assorted journalists and provide non-scripted responses. Would they always nail it? Probably not, but it gives them a chance to come off as genuine human beings who are explaining what they're trying to get done
Newsom, Buttigieg and Shapiro can talk off-the-cuff about any issue and won't hesitate to go into the lion's den. Does that make them "the best" Dem candidate for 2028? Not necessarily, but it's an absolutely massive advantage. And Trump may sound like an idiot, but he'll talk about literally any issue with anyone. Meanwhile, Kamala stuck to carefully crafted answers and did mostly friendly interviews.
My understanding is she was onboard but the scheduling simply didn't work out. She offered to have Rogan meet her somewhere else but he doesn't travel for interviews and didn't want to make an exception for only her.
I dunno. Him endorsing trump so soon after makes me not believe him very much
The disputed points
|Issue|Rogan's account|Harris camp's account|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Who backed out|Harris "never committed" to his show|Campaign chief Jennifer O'Malley Dillon authorized giving Rogan what he asked for, an in-studio Austin interview on Oct 25|
|Oct 25|He says he offered to do Harris the same night as Trump|His team declined Oct 25 as his "personal day," then he taped Trump that day|
|Length|They offered an abbreviated, roughly 45-minute version; his shows typically run about 3 hours|Time constraints in the final stretch of the campaign|
|Marijuana|He suggested Harris wanted to avoid legalization talk because of her prosecuting record|Aides said marijuana was one of the topics they actually pitched joe rogan insists harris team lied suggesting he 'f +6|
I don't listen to Rogan, don't know that much about him and don't have an opinion on whether he wanted the interview. But as a businessman and podcaster, I would think he would want the biggest interview of the year (along with Trump).
> when pushed, he couldn't give any details about what that meant. True morons
i think if you go to a football game, and find a pile of people wearing Team A jerseys, you will reliably find them saying "team A is the best in the world, hands down, team B are 100% losers, if team B won it's because the ref was paid off" etc, and they don't think that any of this is necessarily true from a factual perspective - e.g. if you sent some scientists to investigate their claims, they would be like "lol, what are you doing". their speech is performative of 1) group membership and 2) increasing the status of their in-group.
i think when you talk to trump supporters, you're largely seeing the same thing - the claims they make aren't intended to be factual, empirically-verifiable statements; they're intended to perform group membership and status-enhancement.
obviously, a person like this should not be voting - but if you want to understand their behavior and not be driven up the wall, i think this is one way.
Noam chomsky said he was very surprised listening to a radio show where the coach was on when people would call in with very detailed and nuanced perspective on players and plays that was in depth enough to rival the couches.
These business and government folks got together and taxed the US consumers, and now the refund is going back to the corporations. This is so infuriating!!!!
I swear Revolutions started for less…the feds and private sector stole from us.
What’s been interesting to me has been why prices have not risen higher due to tariffs. I’ve been surprised at how “mild” inflation has been given what’s been happening.
This report explains it: prices would literally have dropped for these categories of goods. So it’s not so much that his tariffs “aren’t that bad” and more that we missed out on a period of profound economic relief.
This isn't news. Anyone who understands anything about anything knew this would happen. Trump's a moron, obviously, but I wonder if in school, this was the only time he perked up and hard wired into his brain that tariffs were a boxing glove.
There's the other angle - more conspiratory - that he did this on purpose, to further tax Americans, to benefit the rich (since they all got their refunds that they didn't pass back to consumers).
The whole thing is a mess. This country elected a middle school bully to run the country, and now it's a fucking mess that Democrats will... again have to clean up.
The tariffs gave further cover to raise prices, which would provide some salve for debt payments and losses on the corporate balance sheets. Record profits, skyrocketing salaries tied to stock price, and a handy dandy excuse. They also provided a gigantic pool of money that Vought could shuffle around to plug up budget holes elsewhere.
As for Dear Leader, he gets to act like the big-time mafia don that he always wanted to be.
And the policies that can aid to fix it will take time, which voters will deem is ineffective even while things are improving. Then dems will get tossed for republicans which will ruin it even further and rinse repeat until we are a pile of ash.
So tariffs caused inflation, inflation caused rate hikes, inflation and rate hikes caused the 10 year treasury yield to skyrocket, and the skyrocketing yields are causing mortgage rates to skyrocket.
Tariffs caused economic problems rippling through the entire American economy.
Thing is 30% of his inbred supporters are still not going to believe it and claim we’re bringing in untold wealth. Well we are, just to Trump and everyone in his circle while the rest get bopped. Midterms folks, our final chance to have anything left of a country to save
The thing about the Fed is they publish most of this stuff in blog posts that are just as easily accessible as any CNBC article, so remove the news bias and narrative construction, and just read the piece for yourself here: https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/10/how-fast-do-tariffs-pass-through-into-consumer-prices/
Because the Fed prioritizes accuracy over speed and it does not publish anything without feeling close to 100% confident that it will hold up to scrutiny.
The only way you can possibly think that this hasn’t been an ongoing topic of discussion at the Fed - in blog posts, speeches, fed minutes, studies, etc - is if you’re literally not paying attention to anything the Fed is saying.
You think you’re criticizing the Fed but you’re really telling on yourself here lol.
The Fed can't continue to operate as if it is a bastion of knowledge on a hill that people must come to learn. That's antiquated in an era where the public increasingly discounts expert opinion. The Fed has to actively engage and no, a blog post isn't sufficient. There's a reason a whole slew of NSF RFPs are around getting science out of academia and into the public discourse because we academics are mostly awful at it, doesn't matter the discipline.
I agree with the overall sentiment, but this isn't really applicable to tariffs specifically. The evidence there is extremely clear, and everyone in the media interviewed in the days after Liberation Day was completely explicit about tariffs being an absolutely terrible idea that would wreck the US economy if implemented as proposed, and severely harm it if toned down.
In this very specific case, the problem is clearly just that 1) Trump genuinely does not understand what a tariff is and does 2) the people around him (Lutnick, Bessent, etc) are willing to lie about things that are obviously untrue and 3) they have enough of a media ecosystem that is willing to help them lie (fox News).
The Trump administration isn't the audience though. That was going to happen no mater what. The problem is that 'everyone and their mom' DIDN'T see this coming. They believed the administration's propaganda (let's call it what it is). Specifically in the case of tariffs, economist should have been on every social media outlet over and over and over explaining in simple terms why you, the worker, or you the voter is going to get hurt by this. I'm talking painfully simple terms. Then encourage those people to go call their Congress person and complain in this very specific case.
This was a slam dunk, easy to explain and easy to know what's going to happen even before you have data confirming that it would happen. Most of what you're talking about was inside baseball and the inside baseball nerds were paying attention. Their mothers, however, were not. That's the problem. We get too mired in our own culture and ecosystem we forget that most people don't think about economics even a little bit. Those are the people we have to reach, not the willing to know. They're already listening.
But they did? The non-Fox News channels routinely had economists on explaining why this was an absolutely terrible idea, Justin Wolfers most notably. No one in mainstream news outside of right-wing propaganda was pretending that this was anything other than a terrible, stupid, destructive idea. More people should have pushed against it, sure, but to be honest, I'm not sure how many people would have been pushed to call their representative by seeing one more Justin Wolfers reel that would not have done so otherwise.
You yourself point out that this was made possible thanks to "right-wing propaganda" (we can agree that's what it is). Maybe that's the source of the problem? That such an institution exists and is influential to begin with? I really don't see why it's such a difficult case to make that most of the blame lies with the US' biggest news channel being a propaganda machine, that cannot be counteracted by economists telling other non-watchers stuff they would already agree with
But they didn't enough, or even the right way. One of the biggest faults with academics is their stodgy unwillingness to declare anything. Most people don't live like that. Look at the language we use about inflation. Will this action cause prices to go up? Economists almost universally recoil from saying "Yes. Prices will go up" because that's a declarative statement. We like wishy-washy phrases like "upward pressure on prices". We need the room to acknowledge nuances might mean outcomes aren't exactly in line with predictions given unforeseen circumstances that might, in fact, blah blah blah BLAH! We can't even say it, so why would anyone believe it in the first place?
I don't think it's terribly productive or even useful to assign blame. Is it Fox News fault? Most certainly. Will that ever change? No fuckin' way. That propaganda is like structural unemployment - always there, can't do anything about it, but not an excuse to ignore what we can do.
> Economists almost universally recoil from saying "Yes. Prices will go up" because that's a declarative statement. We like wishy-washy phrases like "upward pressure on prices".
Again, they did this. I can’t be bothered to find specific links, but just look up Justin Wolfers, Paul Krugman, or whoever your favourite academic economist commentator is. They did this, in no unclear terms: tariffs in the way they were implemented are stupid and would cause prices to increase. This was repeated over and over, both inside the US and outside.
As you yourself point out, that’s not the issue! The issue is that a sufficiently large share of the US fundamentally are not engaged with this sort of thing (and I seriously doubt that Paul Krugman starting a daily Tiktok will make the median American understand comparative advantage), and half of the ones that are nominally engaged watch Fox News and never engage with actual reality.
I genuinely think you have a broadly not incorrect distaste for how academics engage with public discourse, that is just genuinely not applicable in this very specific case. Your experience is just incorrect if you actually followed news cycles at the time, what you are claiming happened is just wrong. Of course you can always do more, but at some point it would be good to actually address the source of the problem (banning Fox News, effectively) rather than just have economists appear on live TV 24/7 or TikTok saying “Trump is bad at economics” (anyone who cares or will listen already knows that)
Again, they didn't do it in the right places to the right audiences! Justin Wolfers, Paul Krugman, whomever you want publishing an NYT Editorial piece isn't hitting the right audience. It's never going to hit the right audience no matter how many times you do it. You can't just preach to the choir then throw your hands up in the air in defeat when that doesn't work.
This issue is that a sufficiently large share of the US doesn't see a particular reason they should be engaged with this sort of thing. Economics doesn't get into the game enough. Outside 'what's the fed going to do to your mortgage/credit card rates' every quarter, economists play next to no part in people's lives, at least in their perception. All they ever talk about is 'markets', which most people simply don't have any mental stake in them. Even if their 401(k) is heavily invested, they've got a person that does that for them. If people are disengaged you can't expect them to suddenly start listening to what you have to say. You can't just come out when it's time to shine and expect everyone to gather around and listen.
You've got to lay the ground work over years so when something comes out about tariffs you've already go the trust built in. You have to make it interesting and entertaining. No, Paul Krugman going on TikTok won't do anything because he's like every other freakin' economist - ivy league educated old white person in tweed. The minute someone like that starts talking, people tune out. You need someone younger, more whatever kids call 'hip' now, who can communicate in ways people can grasp what they're saying. And you need that personality to be doing this for months before an economic crisis, not in the middle of it.
And it'd help if maybe economists occasional talk about workers and worker issues instead of capital, but that's a side rant.
You're being aggressively downvoted in this comment because we are in an election cycle here in the US.
u/RIP_Soulja_Slim always demands zero anaysis from any source outside the government. You are to take and read government reports in their full and not rely on any professionals to explain it to you because it's not your job.
u/RIP_Soulja_Slim brags about this being his job. There are others who brag about it as well. And we're supposed to do their job on top of actually doing our jobs. As everyone knows, that's not how this works. People have jobs, and need help having things summarized for them.
To call his link "easily digestible" is hilarious to me as I've actually published academic work and have recently discovered that my work itself has been repeatedly sourced in new academic work. Even those of us who publish can't keep up with EVERYTHING. Expecting working people to search through government releases is purposefully hiding the ball, which is what u/RIP_Soulja_Slim does on this subbreddit does in an honestly singular way.
Oh look, the dude who follows me around reddit constantly trying to make everything in to a fight.
> There are others who brag about it as well. And we're supposed to do their job on top of actually doing our jobs. As everyone knows, that's not how this works. People have jobs, and need help having things summarized for them.
You do whatever job you want, if you want to be informed about the topics you're interested in then yes, there is some minimum amount of effort there required on your behalf. You don't need things summarized, it takes maybe 20-30 minutes a week to stay well informed here. You want things summarized because you don't want to put in the effort. That's fine, but own up to it.
>To call his link "easily digestible" is hilarious to me
It's quite literally a blog post, written for the general public, not academic works.
Speaking of doing the work, clicking the link is an important aspect of doing the work required to learn something. If you clicked the link here, you'd see that people at the Fed took their academic works and summarized them in an easily digestible format for you.
People that want to learn will, and people that don't want to learn will find ways to blame everyone but themselves for their being uninformed, including the Fed or I guess the guy on reddit who had the audacity to put the link in front of them while they were scrolling.
As strongly as you feel the American people shouldn't be allowed to read analyses of economic data is how strongly I feel in not caring about your rage against the actual study called economics.
You're a pure propagandist, and that's fine, but I'm allowed to laugh at you, read analyses of economic data, and comment on them until the mods of this subreddit change the rules. Which they may never, so I comment away.
> As strongly as you feel the American people shouldn't be allowed to read analyses of economic data is how strongly I feel in not caring about your rage against the actual study called economics.
I have no idea what extreme lack of basic literacy has lead you to think this, but it's certainly not based on anything I've ever said lol.
But this is your MO. You're a crazed right wing nutjob who spends all their time praising Joe Rogan, and you've grown irrationally angry at anyone on the left who's capable of citing the hordes of data that make Trump look bad. So you follow me around pretending like whatever coocoo stuff you've cooked up is the real thing, and somehow that the person who's linking the research and saying "read for yourself" is wrong lol.
Look man, I've got no intent on engaging with you. I'm sure the next reply will be something even more absurd, and I'm sure you'll never once be able to actually cite a time I said the crazy shit you constantly accuse everyone here of saying. But it's not worth the time. Carry on begging for validation I guess.
Asking people to read beyond a clearly biased (and almost always misrepresentative ) headline is leading you to post all this whining? My lord.
Yes if you want to discuss economics you should have a basic understanding of what you’re trying to discuss. Same as if we were talking about cooking and you insisted we actually talk about movie theatre projectors.
Username checks out, oh right, I've used that on you before because you white knight for misinformation, disinformation, and general anti-intellectualism.
I honestly couldn't be more proud to have someone like you be this furious I'm allowed to speak truth publicly.
I'm done being told I'm not allowed to laugh at free comedy when people such as yourself shove your comedy down my throat. Since you force yourself to star in a dark comedy about failure of spirit, you should at least enjoy it. Comedies are supposed to be fun.
Because they are in on the grift, now that the political winds are shifting the media is trying to say look see we've been critical you can trust us we're on your side. When in reality the owners are on Trump's side and are keeping information slow dripping.
I remember reading something about someone named Lisa Cook and Jerome Powell, the former head who had to go the Supreme Court because of political pressure from Trump.
Yeah, it genuinely has nothing to do with it. Those people literally went to court because they didn't fold to pressure from Trump and he keeps harassing them.
You're speaking out of your ass on things you do not understand. The evidence on tariffs has been clear for decades, this report is in no way unexpected, and the Fed has been reporting on this for a year and a half, as a comment elsewhere in the thread has laid out in detail.
You're spreading a baseless conspiracy theory that doesn't even make sense
It would be a good idea to maybe read just a smidge more then eh? Because you're using the Fed going to court to protect their people from political retribution and winning as evidence that the Fed is somehow compromised by politicians?
See, this is, again, one of those things where you're showing how little effort you've put in to learning before forming your very confident thoughts.
Definitely noticed the increase in cost of living in last year. I had wanted to step up my savings effort, but even with a 4% raise at work, I’m going to have to cut savings back again. It’s just bleeding our cash to buy the groceries and the damn gas.
Isn't it crazy that tariffs are supposed to make import more expensive, but Made in America and domestic goods also got expensive as well. Why is that?
I asked this somewhere else but I have to ask it again - Why did it took them so long to figure to figure out that this inflation was all due to Trump and his cockamame ideas?
Good answer. The fed has long said something like: all else being equal tariffs will probably create upward pressure. But macro has a lot of noise around the signal so saying things definitively takes an annoyingly long time.
>The initial increase in the unemployment rate together with the drop in inflation both suggest that tariffs act like a brake on the demand side of the economy. Firms may withhold investment spending until there is more clarity on future trade policy, since tariff policies will prompt them to reconsider how they arrange their supply chains. Consumers may respond cautiously to the new environment by slowing down their demand for products and services. Over time, the economy adjusts: The unemployment rate returns to its original level or even declines slightly, whereas inflation picks up and peaks three years after the initial change in tariffs, relative to the scenario where tariffs remain unchanged.
Now, April of 25 you get tariffs, summer of 25 heading in to the fall was the worst labor market we've seen in a non recession period in at least 2 decades, fall of 25 you begin to see stabilization in labor and consumption recovering, by Fall/Winter you're seeing inflation start back up, and then accelerate through the spring.
Just seems like they about nailed it, historical analysis right in line with what we've seen so far.
Problem is, everyone's screaming "tariffs are inflationary" so trying to explain that well, maybe deflationary and bad for jobs for a bit, then inflationary, but it takes a lot of time falls on a lot of deaf ears lol.
But those price impacts felt sure kicked in fast, as well as the increased quarterly profits.
Maybe had something to do with tariff refunds finally going to the companies, not being passed along to consumer in any way? THEN they tell us what we all knew, all along.
> Maybe had something to do with tariff refunds finally going to the companies, not being passed along to consumer in any way? THEN they tell us what we all knew, all along.
I really don't see how the Fed releasing analysis more quickly would have changed this.
Theoretically, this isn't really new information. Every single economist, policymaker, and person with an ounce of critical thinking could have predicted this easily. This report adds stronger evidence, but not really surprising information.
Practically, it would have been very difficult to issue refunds to downstream consumers (you would need to prove that an increase in costs was due to tariffs), whereas the importer themselves have an actual tariff bill that can just be refunded at the press of a button.
Also, your accusation would imply that the Fed is cooperating with Trump on this? Trump's #1 most hated independent public institution, which has no reason to help him?
I appreciate your comments on this. My mind will not be swayed in my assertion that Fed Reserve is not independent of political influence, as Wall Street influences both Fed and elected politicians.
Wall Street, as the backbone of our new economy (not the middle class, not the working class), exerts overt levels of influence on policy and decision making.
I will not listen to an argument that says otherwise. The tail wags the dog.
> I will not listen to an argument that says otherwise
You will not listen to well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments? What a great way to engage with reality.
You are the one making an argument that does not rely on straightforward interpretations of reality. Do you have any evidence that whatever influence Wall Street has on the Fed specifically or likely led to this report being slowed down?
That doesn't even make any sense, by the way. Wall Street hated Liberation Day, because as much as we can hate them, they are not generally complete idiots; they want to make money, and the current chaotic environment is not a ripe ground for moneymaking. Sure, some small groups of people are profiting from insider info on tariffs. But that's not the people you are accusing.
I don't know about that. That's like saying that it would take time to figure out that the reason why everything outside was flooded as it was either from the hurricane directly overhead or a broken water main.
This is why anything formal and official is so damn annoying.
There is a non zero chance of the drain being blocked. Everyone knows the hurricane has dropped a shitton of water, but to say it was definitely the hurricane, that caused the flood, you would need to measure the amount of water dropped by the hurricane per minute, and then compare it to the average water dropped during a rain, and what the drainage was designed to carry.
Then you need to show it to another expert so that your work is checked. And finally you type up your report and publish it.
>Why did it took them so long to figure to figure out that this inflation was all due to Trump
Classic case of redditors being certain a thing doesn't exist because they've never seen it.
Here's just a few:
Pre-emptive modeling in May of 2025: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/detecting-tariff-effects-on-consumer-prices-in-real-time-20250509.html
October 2025: https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/oct/how-tariffs-are-affecting-prices-2025
March of this year: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-slow-climb-how-tariffs-gradually-raised-retail-prices-in-2025-20260305.html
April of this year: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/detecting-tariff-effects-on-consumer-prices-in-real-time-part-II-20260408.html
I'm sure there's copious others, these were easily available within a second.
Pretending like the Fed hasn't been discussing this since day one really says a lot about how little you're paying attention to what the Fed says.
Also, expecting the Fed to write articles the way Redditors write comments - with stuff like "it's 100% Trump's fault full stop" is nonsensical. They're economists, they're going to publish the data and interpret it in a clean manner. Which is what they've been doing.
This is a classic example of 'academia' (meaning research broadly, not just higher education) talking amongst themselves is important, but not the end of the conversation. It's arguably more important to get this information out to the public. Sticking them on a website and assuming the public has the knowledge to read and interpret what's intended for peer readership doesn't cut it.
This news article is based on a blog post the Fed made, a blog post explicitly meant to do the thing you say they're not doing. Each of these branches runs a similar blog, expressly meant for public education.
At some point we need to stop blaming others and take on a bit of personal responsibility. The information is there, its accessible, it's being created for the masses. What more would you want? The Fed to be hiring influencers to flood a tiktok feed with economic data?
The people who are interested in learning about this are consuming this information (I'm on the mailing list of over a dozen different economic entities - and have been spending my saturday mornings for years parsing through that week's information). Those who aren't are not, and are still trying to blame the institutions for their own knowledge gaps. All too frequently posts here with comprehensive sourcing, explanations, data, etc are downvoted simply because they're not in line with people's vibes.
We've got to stop acting like low IQ people's desire for confirmation bias fulfillment is the fault of institutions not fulfilling said confirmation bias.
Blogs are outdated. Nobody reads that stuff anymore. That's 20 year old thinking. You can't just write a blog post, issue a press release, and then go around congratulating each other on a job well done. That's the point. What we did 50 years ago doesn't cut it anymore.
Flood tikcok? FUCK YES! Threads, Instagram, YouTube, any goddamn thing you can find. We're beyond the age of publish on a government site or a peer reviewed journal and call it a day. Get a podcast. Get on 50 podcasts. Start a YouTube channel. Get some media consultants in. This is the modern landscape.
We can no longer constrain ourselves to the people who want to hear our lectures. That's how you end up with this nightmare scenario. Do economists want to end up like climate change experts? Right but utterly ignored so effectively pointless?
We've got to stop being condescending to people and figure out how to effectively communicate what we're doing. Because we're failing miserably at it.
Blogs are not outdated, plenty of people read these things. They may not be in fashion among the sort of aggressively uneducated person on reddit who thinks they have it all figured out, but that's not the audience. Blogs are written for those who want to learn.
>Flood tikcok? FUCK YES! Threads, Instagram, YouTube, any goddamn thing you can find.
IDK if you're new to this sub or not, but if so stick around for just a bit. Watch how people react when information coming from any of these expert sources is slightly out of line with what the uneducated masses want to hear. Most of the most well informed people on this sub are found downvoted, because nuance and detail is inherently too much effort to consume for the plurality of individuals. Tiktoks don't fix the general human aversion to learning detailed information. All you'll do is move the refusal to read excuses like "this is Fed propaganda, ignore it" from reddit comments to tiktok stitches.
Yes, Blogs are outdated. Plenty of people read the printed newspaper (myself included) but nobody is calling the printed newspaper current technology.
The aggressively uneducated is the exact audience economists need to embrace. That's the mistaken. We can't keep talking in a bubble and nodding to each other. We already know the material. A stovepipe doesn't work anymore. We've got to get over ourselves and our superiority.
For example:
>Most of the most well informed people on this sub are found downvoted, because nuance and detail is inherently too much effort to consume for the plurality of individuals. Tiktoks don't fix the general human aversion to learning detailed information.
Which is why we have to learn to do it better and different. Nuances are nice for peer review but utterly useless for the public. We can't keep living in our bubble assuming people will listen or care about what we do. In fact, they're actively working to ignore what we know. That's because we've surrendered the narrative because communication is hard and we're too lazy to learn to do it well.
Physicists rightfully critique Neil deGrasse Tyson all day and night on his science but you know what nobody can critique him on? His skills at being relatable and communicate with the general public. He's done more for raising the awareness and interest in science than anyone in the public sphere, even Carl Sagan. We need a Tyson for economics.
> Which is why we have to learn to do it better and different. Nuances are nice for peer review but utterly useless for the public. We can't keep living in our bubble assuming people will listen or care about what we do.
Nuances aren't nice, they're the line between accuracy and inaccuracy. The world does not fit in to simple binary outcomes with plain easy explanations. So what you're effectively saying is that we should proactively dumb things down to the point of being incorrect just so stupid people who have no desire to actually learn these things can maybe have a chance at digesting them, but will likely reject it based on vibes anyway.
I'm just going to outright disagree on that. Integrity matters. And if integrity and adhering to the fact that nuances within outcomes are just as important as the outcomes is offputting to some, I'm perfectly fine with that. We shouldn't be advocating that professionals sacrifice their integrity and adherence to accuracy just to cater to the sort of brainrot social media user that thinks reading 500 words is a lot of work. Those people aren't listening anyway, they might lie to you and say they are, but all they want is to exercise confirmation bias.
I don't think they're saying have tiktoks instead of deeply researched nuanced blog posts, its in addition to. Science & government in general (which includes economics) need massive PR campaigns to regain public trust and support and some of that is gonna have to be targeting the lowest common denominator. It shouldn't be a replacement, it should be a supplement, because those same base uneducated voters seem to be largely determining our economic direction to our detriment in the current political system. If we want integrity to matter, we have advertise why now, we can no longer rely on it being self evident.
Tiktoks of economic data isn't going to trend or be viral. You're putting the cart before the horse here. Attention is being monopolized and there's nothing you can do to make knowledge sexier.
The issue isn't that we don't have enough bread to feed the masses. They simply prefer cake. Dumping a ton of sugar into bread doesn't just make it more palatable. It also just makes it more cake.
> I don't think they're saying have tiktoks instead of deeply researched nuanced blog posts, its in addition to.
Yes, and what I am saying is that's not a practical possibility. You can't dumb down most of this stuff sufficiently that it fits in a short form video in an accurate manner, especially not if you want to make it entertaining for the sort of person who can't be bothered to read two paragraphs.
Sacrificing accuracy is inherent to this idea, which is why it's never going to happen.
YES! "Trust me, I'm an economist" no longer has the steam it did 30/40/50 years ago. The only people who can correct that is economists and I'm utterly baffled at how much they are dragging their feet in doing so.
It's not just economics that has that issue either, but this is the Economics subreddit.
>Nuances aren't nice, they're the line between accuracy and inaccuracy.
This is a great example of what I'm talking about!
Accuracy is great in a peer reviewed journal. But the world just doesn't work like that. We can't wait for 99.9999% accuracy to make decisions. That's not how people operate. People make thousands of decisions a week with incomplete and imperfect information that isn't 100% accurate. We're too afraid of being 'wrong' that we're rather not say anything.
>So what you're effectively saying is that we should proactively dumb things down to the point of being incorrect
No, absolutely not and I strongly disagree that's the implication. I'm saying that you've got to simplify the complex and know what you're saying is probably right. Not absolutely, probably.
Economists are far too removed from people. They need to get in there and mix it up a little, maybe start actually caring about the people the proport to study. It's all well and good for economists like yourself to be safe in an ivory tower were the consequences of accuracy or inaccuracy are essentially non-existent. But people are dealing with wage insecurity, housing insecurity, food security, and all the health/social outcomes from those things. Yet we can't be arsed to give a fuck because 'integrity'? That's bullshit and we both know it.
Nobody is saying "give up accuracy". I'm saying figure out what you know and tell actually get off your ass and sell it to the public. That should be easy. If you can't, go find people who can.
At this point in the back and forth it looks like you’re just arguing because you want to win. You’ve moved the goalposts a few times and what you’ve written makes you come off like someone who can’t do anything for themselves and expects everyone else to spoon feed them everything. It’s ok to admit being wrong about something, acknowledge a lesson learned, and move on. Most people will respect that more than the digging in.
They do, but much like you see with how hard conservatives shout down scientists on climate change, immigration, trans people, vaccines and much more, they are ignored and then threatened if they keep going.
And like climate change scientists, immigration advocates, trans advocates, vaccine advocates - economists have to work harder and do better. You don't get points for every shot your try, only the ones you make.
Perception and reality aren’t very far apart on this issue. Redditors can be a doomer group; myself included.
But we weren’t wrong in our assertion on this one topic, but we sure enjoyed the gaslighting about how wrong we were, initially. At this point, no Federal Reserve confirmation needed. Their credibility is suspect anyway.
Who was gaslighting you about tariffs? And why would the credibility of the Fed be suspect when they’re doing piles of deep dive research on this very topic?
I find a lot of people treat the news like a tree falling in tbe forest - if their social media algorithm doesnt plaster it all over their feed it basically doesnt exist
No one [on social media/reddit] was listening, but plenty of others were.
IIRC the Fed presser in April discussed waiting on rates because of tariffs, it was in their minutes too, and just spotted all throughout every other corner of their communication avenues haha.
Still, people find any reason to blame anyone but themselves when they find themselves not knowing something that was clearly communicated.
I think that's forgetting the very vocal people that were screaming it from the start. They'd just get drowned out by the admin lying about deals made and investments coming in and people would run with that as cover.
Smart people have known that tariffs lead to higher prices. But the messaging coming from this administration is to ignore facts, blame Biden, or claim the opposite it happening. Real question is whether these facts trickle down to the trailer parks or is even uttered on Faux News.
There is a massive propaganda arm protecting this government - you can thank US media laws allowing consolidation of media into the control of a few rich assholes.
Yes and unfortunately our media is owned by a handful of gop billionaires. People ask why dem accomplishments aren’t publicized as much, well the media isn’t working for them.
What you are looking at here is not an opinion based on principles, it's a hard analysis and tracking of this data.
To calculate it officially, you first need the data itself. The data only solidifies several months after.
On top of that, Trump's tariffs are all over the place, and change constantly. So to follow those price changes, you need to spend a lot of time analyzing dozens and dozens of suppliers and getting their data to analyze it.
* Trump sales tax. If only someone could have warned us. I still cant believe he/they are not consistently called out for not knowing or pretending to not know how tariffs work.
Sure but let’s not forget that profits grew at 10.2% annually since 2019 for the private sector. Also after-tax profits as a share of gross value added hit 19.4%, the highest since the series began in the 1940s. That money was extracted from consumers, demonstrating firms have tremendous power to set prices independent from input costs.
Gee ya don't say? You mean all the super intelligent econ folks on this sub who condescendingly told Reddit that we're idiots for thinking the numbers were bullshit.....were wrong? Nooooooooo waaaaaay.
No one saw that coming ! Who could have predicted that raising the cost of bringing goods into the country and to market would result in higher costs ? No one !
Trump has failed upwards his entire life. He has never done anything successful except scamming people. It is said that some people still believe he will save the country. I guess that is why he is a cult leader.
They knew the whole time, they just really didn't want to incur the wrath of the administration, Fox News, pundits and the peanut gallery. Numbers don't matter anymore, spin does.
And even if tariffs were largely removed tomorrow, prices will remain sticky. I was on an earnings call for a manufacturer after IEPPA was struck down. Analyst asked if they would lower prices and the CFO said no. That the customers had become normalized to these prices.
And those of us with (only) 401ks are slaves to earnings growth so we can survive if we actually ever retire.
So we don't protest too loudly about consumer prices because we need high stock prices
I figured out the game folks. It was never about Hormuz, Hormuz was the battle but the war was for the US bond market. The last few months Galibaf hasn't been posting shit about the strait or the action in it, instead he's been posting about breaking the US bond market. It was never Iran vs hegseth it was always Iran vs Bessant
Wrong, corporations used the excuse of tariffs to raise prices...kind of like the way they blamed "supply chain issues" post covid to extract more wealth for themselves.
Look I love hating on incompetent and corrupt institutions as much as anyone else but the Fed has talked about tariffs being the source for months.
But it takes TIME to actually gather data and PROVE that hypothesis. Screaming at our institutions to just say whatever floats our boats is inevitably going to lead to us being lied to.
I didn't realize that Trump did more COVID stimulus in the past 12 months?
Can you cite where he did that to cause the change in item prices as studied by the Fed?
The paper does a pretty good job of isolating effects other than tariffs, so if there's a secret COVID stimulus they missed that would be good to point out to them.
I never said Trump did more COVID stimulus in the last 12 months. I’m talking about the inflation we’ve experienced since 2020, not just the tariff effects in this study. There’s also a lag in the debt markets. Debt issued at historically low rates doesn’t all mature overnight. As that debt rolls over at higher rates, interest costs increase, putting even more pressure on federal deficits and potentially adding to inflationary pressure down the road. The CBO has already projected rising interest costs for precisely this reason.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105
I'm familiar with these kinds of reports issued by Federal Reserve economists. They always start with the following disclaimer:
>This paper presents preliminary findings and is being distributed to economists and other interested readers solely to stimulate discussion and elicit comments. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author(s).
This is not the position of the NY Federal Reserve Bank. It is the preliminary findings of three individual economists, who have research positions within the economic research division. The headline (and people here are assuming) that this is a broadly supported position within the Federal Reserve. It is not. It is solely the (professional, and preliminary) opinion of three economists.
...
Finally, and I'm actually reading just abstract, introduction, and conclusions (results) of the research paper this article is citing... I think the reporter just straight up fabricated the headline. The research report does not say ("Inflation was entirely due to tariffs"). The journalist didn't read this academic economics research, and is just claiming some research into tariffs and consumer prices supports the journalists' agenda.
But feel free to read the actual research in full and find out where the cited research supports the journalist's claim.
...
It is very wrong to claim that short-term inflation can be attributed to any single cause; and the NY Fed isn't claiming that.
Tariffs raise the prices of goods made at home, not just the imports they tax —an effect that standard pass-through estimates largely miss. Studying the 2025 U.S. tariffs, we find that about 26 percent of the tariff increase passes through to consumer prices. These estimates are measured relative to less-exposed goods and hold aggregate conditions fixed. The direct effect accounts for 64 percent of this increase, as tariffs raise the consumer prices of foreign varieties of a good. The remaining 36 percent arises indirectly —
tariffs raise the cost of imported inputs used by U.S. producers, and domestic producers raise their
markups because they face less competition from higher-priced imports. The direct effect passes through quickly, since tariffs raise import prices almost immediately, but the indirect effect takes nine to twelve months to work its way through supply chains. As a result, tariffs have a larger and more drawn-out
impact on consumer prices than the direct effect alone would suggest.
Wow, so only 26% of tariffs are passed to the consumer. This report seems to be directly contradicting the often heard quote “the consumer pays the tariffs”.
Basically looking at this report tariffs are an effective tax leading other countries to devalue their currency or reduce prices for 74% of the tax, and consumers only pay 26%.
Am I missing something? GP seems correct in their assessment that the headline isn’t correct.
Sure it was. When a Democrat is in office or if they potentially secure both senate and house then inflation on everyday items will be entirely due to price gouging.
The commentary is well documented. The data will only be reported if it supports the narrative, otherwise we’ll never hear about it.
After the midterms I’m prepared for people to start changing their tune a bit. Not entirely, since the president is still the president, but the democrats need some well documented wins (beyond Trump) to retain/have a chance in 2028. Everything can’t be doom and gloom. They’ll need to point to something economically. Most will still be struggling, it’s an administration problem currently and will shift to a personal problem in the coming years.
Sorry, so your claim is that the broad unilateral tariffs, that have been credibly and near-universally documented as leading to increased prices, did not raise prices?
It played a part but since covid, corporations have become greedy AF and raised prices on everything and shrunk the size of items. Seems like voting with your wallet is the only way to get attention to matters.
It began as a supply chain issue during COVID, then came the profiteering. At this point I just think businesses are trying to destroy their consumer base with greed.
How much did it cost for them to do that study?
Also, if our comments must contain 140 characters, give a counter. I'm not going to sit here and count 'em!
Glad to see the government raising more taxes via new approach with tariffs. Raising tax rates helps the economy to grow and helps pay down the public debt. Everybody can afford to pay their fair share, so I'm not sure why anyone is complaining about this if they use public roads, libraries, schools, etc. If you don't like tariffs, you can move to a country which doesn't have tariffs, but good luck finding one. By staying in the USA you are consenting to paying your fair share via tariffs
Except the tariffs aren’t paying down any debts, the money collected was refunded to the corporations that “paid” the tariffs after they offloaded the costs by raising prices on Americans.
The tariffs go into the government budget, just like any other tax, so yes, it is objectively helping to pay down the debt
> the money collected was refunded to the corporations that “paid” the tariffs
Well this is a failure of the courts trying to return the money to the greedy corporations. Trump tried his best to raise our taxes, as he should, and we should just thank him for finally helping the American economy with higher tax rates.
Actually, I think you'll find that the President does have the ability and power to adjust tax rates. And good thing, too, because we need rates to increase across the board if we're ever going to pay down the debt. You shouldn't complain about paying your fair share
Well, it was found that in this case, he actually did not have the power to adjust rates. Womp womp.
Edit: lmfao, they blocked me. Always a sign of a good and thorough argument. Maybe the president shouldn't willingly do some illegal if he doesn't want it to be overturned by people whose job it is to overturn illegal things?
You think tax rates need to increase across the board and you're celebrating Trump for his tariffs (a sales tax that is inherently regressive) when his signature legislative accomplishment was a major tax cut for the rich?
Oh, boy, you're just completely disconnected from reality.
Both Obama and Biden raised tariff rates, so I'm not sure what your problem with it is. I can only imagine two possibilities:
You dislike a good policy if Trump does it instead of Obama/Biden
You don't want to pay your fair share
Either way ... can you just... not? Just pay your fair share. It's not hard. If you use the roads, schools, libraries, etc, we aren't asking you to do a lot except pay your fair share and stop complaining about it
That’s funny, I remember Trump saying the tariffs had nothing to do with paying down the budget. Depending on the week, they were 1) a punitive measure against foreign enemies; 2) a way to balance the trade deficit (why? who knows!); 3) a way to reshore industries to the US; 4) a way to reduce debt (do note this goes against 3 in the long term).
Maybe this wasn’t a well thought-through policy idea? From Trump? No way.
> it is objectively helping to pay down the debt
Yeah, and if you take a singular grain of sand and put it in a bucket you’ve technically contributed to removing a beach.
> Well this is a failure of the courts trying to return the money to the greedy corporations
Why? The tariffs are literally paid by the corporations, there is a receipt. If the tariffs are ruled illegal, they should absolutely be refunded.
Oh, but actually there’s pass through and consumers paid it? Sure, good luck making that individual court case considering it will depend on the sector, the specific firm, the specific item, the specific time, etc. Maybe that highlights the fact that implementing illegal unilateral tariffs was a shitty fucking idea in the first place?#
Edit: They blocked me, lmfao. Always a sign of a good argument.
I'm happy to pay taxes, for the record, provided they're well designed and help the country. Tariffs do neither. Therefore, they're a shitty idea. I notice you can't be bothered to actually engage with the substance, which seems typical of Trump supporters. Oh well, they never send their best.
Lots of cope to say you don't want to pay your fair share. That's really an unpatriotic sentiment, I'm sorry to say. You should be proud to pay taxes to support our government IF you use the roads, the firefighter services, the hospitals, the schools, etc.
The President should raise all taxes, because we should all be paying our fair share. Tariffs are just one area where taxes can be raised. President Trump should also implement a national sales tax of 20%.
Inflation was even higher before the tarrifs though. Just look at 2021-2024.
Posts like these are so petty, and reek of hyper partisan political agenda embedded in our institutions. This is part of the reason why there's no trust left. Everyone is a liar.
But don't let reality get in the way of a good circle jerk.
Unfunded tax cuts are robbing Peter to pay Paul, something that conservatives are supposed to be against. Especially considering they are already tossed on top of an already unfunded tax cut from 2017.
Demanding free money and refusing to pay it back is all very socialist, especially from the party that keeps saying "you took out a loan, pay it back."
Tax cuts are the polar opposite of "robbing" anyone. It's literally less "robbing", and just peacefully allowing people to keep their own money that they've legitimately earned.
> just peacefully allowing people to keep their own money that they've legitimately earned.
You mean like all the money Trump and his cronies have stolen from the American people by insider betting on tariffs, incredible levels of corruption for access to the president? Those sorts of legitimate earnings?
if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is, because I've seen more institutional theft and redistribution of wealth in the last two years then I have ever seen in my entire life...
McLight77 | 8 hours ago
We know. We all know. Everyone with a basic understanding of how money works knew this. We knew before he was even elected. Unfortunately we’re a country made mostly of highly confident morons.
che-che-chester | 8 hours ago
I saw some clips yesterday on MS NOW where they were interviewing people at a Trump rally. These people were decked out in Trump gear from head-to-toe. They asked them what they thought and of course they said they're happy with the past two years. When asked why, they would say something like "things are finally getting done". But then when pushed, they couldn't list a single thing. One guy made some generic statement about how 'Dems need to wake up' and when pushed, he couldn't give any details about what that meant. True morons.
I think Trump has been a total failure and I could have cobbled together a decent on-the-spot answer in that scenario. If you have nothing smart to say, at least have the sense to yell 'you're fake news!' and walk away.
AutotrophicGyroscope | 8 hours ago
It's literally all emotion with those people. There's not a single ounce of logic among magas. I don't see a way forward with such a large percentage of the population completely divorced from reality, unable to determine cause and effect.
che-che-chester | 6 hours ago
I've said this many times, but I simply don't get the fascination with Trump. I thought Obama was an overall good POTUS but I didn't/don't worship him. I can and will openly criticize Obama without hesitation. Nobody is all good or all bad. We should call out mistakes/failures and corruption by our leaders. That's how we tell their future replacements what we're willing to accept.
We joke about Trump being their "God", but there is a lot of truth in it. To them, he in infallible. He can literally do no wrong. If he loses in court, the judge is a radical liberal. If a news story is negative, it's fake news. He does things to make their lives measurably worse and yet he still gets a pass. It truly is a cult.
I'd have much more respect for MAGA if they said "We know Trump is a moron, but we feel he is taking us in the right direction as a country so we're willing to tolerate the non-stop nonsense that comes from the White House." And I suspect many non-MAGA Republicans do feel that way, but they're just not allowed to publicly say he's a moron.
random_chaos_coming | 6 hours ago
Obama’s changes to remove the lifetime maximum limit for medical insurance literally changed my life. Really impactful for so many Americans. Yet we don’t worship him, fly Obama flags or ignore poor decisions. The cognitive dissonance of these Trump lovers is scary.
ifsck | 5 hours ago
Conservative mindset judges people based on membership of the in-group, rather than morality of actions like the liberal mindset does. So it doesn't really matter what someone is doing, as long as they keep up appearances and stay in favor, everything can be explained away. It isn't any reflection of reality, just vibes. And as the leader of the in-group, Trump can do no wrong in their eyes.
HumorAccomplished611 | 5 hours ago
Exactly. To dems a pedophile is bad because they rape kids. To republicans, a pedophile is only bad when they arent republican, if they are then its ok.
dust4ngel | 5 hours ago
> Conservative mindset judges people based on membership of the in-group
i understand conservative psychology as the scarcity mindset: we are at risk of death in the next five minutes, so we don't have time to debate or to think or fact check, we just have to act, probably with violence against anyone we don't recognize, and we need to coordinate as a group so we need a leader, and we don't have time to choose an appropriate one, so we all have to fall behind whoever seems decisive, even if they're not making any sense, and anyone who doesn't go along with the group needs to get hit in the head with a rock.
ifsck | 5 hours ago
I had considered it as a survival mechanism, so thank you for putting it more definitively into words.
Cdub7791 | 36 minutes ago
This is an very true point. I once had a coworker who defended a corrupt politician (corrupt as in, tried and convicted for crimes and also had multiple other scandals) because he went to her church and that made him a "good man." In that specific case he was a Democrat, so a conservative mindset doesn't always adhere to strict political labels, but in general GOP voters seem much more susceptible to it.
dust4ngel | 5 hours ago
> I simply don't get the fascination with Trump
the thing i can only barely wrap my mind around is why certain groups who don't seem to benefit from this also consider him a god, such as:
che-che-chester | 3 hours ago
I think there is an underlying "back to the 50's" dream for conservatives. But so much of it is rooted in things that simply don't exist anymore.
Middle class women had fewer options in the 50's. Not literally, as they could go to college, stay unmarried, work full-time, etc. But there was a lot of pressure for them to take certain paths, like getting married young, staying at home with kids, remain in bad marriages, etc. That pressure does not exist now, at least in urban areas.
Middle class white men had less competition for skilled jobs in the 50's. Now they need to compete against women and minorities.
In the 50's, American companies couldn't give your middle class job to someone in India.
A single middle class breadwinner could support a family and buy a house in the 50's. Now things are often tight with two breadwinners.
In the 50's, there were also other factors helping a boom like the GI bill and VA loans for returning WWII soldiers. There were stronger unions. Pensions were much more common, so you could retire at a realistic age and not be required to save every dollar possible while working.
dyslexda | 4 hours ago
> brown people
The Democratic establishment has long had its head in the sand regarding Hispanic political leanings. Turns out they tend to be rather conservative socially and politically, outside of immigration, and even that preference disappears after a couple of generations.
bracewithnomeaning | 4 hours ago
I think this is the main problem-not being able to add 2+2.
elshizzo | 3 hours ago
>I don't see a way forward with such a large percentage of the population completely divorced from reality, unable to determine cause and effect.
We just need a coalition of sane people large enough to make sure these people don't have influence in deciding where our government goes. For a generation at minimum
pagerussell | an hour ago
Agreed and that's why I want my left coast to just secede.
These people should not have power over me and mine, and there is zero path from here back to sanity.
Somanylyingliars | 36 minutes ago
Most of them have personality disorders. No one capable of thinking critical would approve of Dumpo.
MTVs_DanCortese | 7 hours ago
> When asked why, they would say something like "things are finally getting done".
Thankful that a younger politician like Mamdani took a hint from comments like these. There's plenty of inattentive non-MAGA middle-of-the-road voters who also think that elected officials get the job and then sit around doing nothing but collecting a paycheck. Moving forward, successful elected officials have to make a show of demonstrating that they're actually getting stuff done, even if a lot of it is just performative.
che-che-chester | 6 hours ago
This was one of my biggest frustrations with Biden. Did I think he could do the job of POTUS at his age? Yes, but with the big caveat of only becasue he surrounded himself by serious, experienced staff. And I'm sure he did "lean" on his staff. But Biden couldn't do core parts of the job like selling his accomplishments and future plans to the public. His speeches were painful to watch and I honestly muted the sound most of the time. And that aspect of the job is absolutely critical to campaigning for a second term.
I'm not making excuses for the economy under Biden, but I always felt there was a decent story to tell and Biden was simply incapable of telling it. When he spoke about the economy, it came off as dismissive. If you're trying to convince voters the economy isn't that bad, that requires a lot of context. The funny thing is Trump is doing the exact same thing right now and telling voters to not believe their lying eyes about the economy.
HumorAccomplished611 | 5 hours ago
I mean you dont think he had a team on this?
Part of the issue is it took 3 big accomplishments to even break through something positive in the news for the biden admin.
Made jobs! oh thats gonna cause inflation to go up. Less jobs. Oh thats bad for the economy. ETC ETC
The billionaire owned media ecosystem is very much against dems.
Since time immemorial dems simply relied on the media to tell the truth to win votes. They stopped doing this around obamas time and even worse during trumps. Theyll weigh two unequal things like biden having files from when he was VP in his garage to trump keeping top secret stolen files that were requested back in an area where it was easily accessible to tens of thousanads.
In the meantime, the republicans not relying on this built a whole ecosystem of self reinforcing power of propaganda thats with their voters every day. Funded and owned by billionaires.
che-che-chester | 3 hours ago
There are many aspects to the Biden/Harris loss, and I don't disagree with what you said. But I still a major factor is Biden personally needed to make the case and he wasn't up to that task at his age. While capable, Harris didn't do it either, but I suspect her campaign made the strategic decision to let Trump's massive unpopularity do the heavy lifting.
HumorAccomplished611 | 3 hours ago
I mean agreed. But the presidency is running the country. Running for president is an entire different job that biden seemed unable to have the energy for while he ran the country.
Anything kamala said or did was crowded out by social media owned by billionaires who all showed up to trumps inauguration and sat where family sits. Thats telling to me.
I read somewhere if you got your news from tiktok you were about 10 points more likely to vote republican.
che-che-chester | 2 hours ago
I'm tough on Kamala but a) any Dem replacing Biden would have struggled with the incredibly short campaign timeline and b) hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure at the time playing it safe while letting Trump say things to hurt himself seemed like a good strategy. I can see how it would be tempting to sit back and let him do the work, knowing that voters don't exactly love you either.
But I think her team underestimated how big of a drag the economy was on her campaign. She needed to criticize Biden (but stop short of throwing him under the bus) and talk about going a different direction. She wasn't really in a position to do that and be believable as Biden's VP. But would any Dem who replaced Biden have done that, at least to the extent needed? Probably not.
Lotus_Domino_Guy | 5 hours ago
"Trump is in the Epstein files, and here's why that's bad news for Democrats!" sort of stories.
HumorAccomplished611 | 5 hours ago
Yep. Trumps a pedophile that raped children. But we saw biden sniff a kid or pat them in a grandfatherly way. so both sides ya know.
Consistent_Laziness | 4 hours ago
And there’s a difference between difficulty through speech through to some old age and a speech impediment, but his message was still coherent and factual.
Compared to Trump, where it is incoherent, violent, and largely about himself. But yet Trump can say they’re eating the cats and transgender kids are playing in the wrong sport and suddenly we’re both siding this BS.
HumorAccomplished611 | 4 hours ago
> And there’s a difference between difficulty through speech through to some old age and a speech impediment, but his message was still coherent and factual. > >
This. The dementia thing still rankles me. He never had dementia. Losing your place or misspeaking isnt dementia.
Remember when the news reported on a parkinsons specialist was visiting the white house. Implying it was for biden. Only for it to come out that biden wasnt even there for half the visits the doctor came for.
>Compared to Trump, where it is incoherent, violent, and largely about himself. But yet Trump can say they’re eating the cats and transgender kids are playing in the wrong sport and suddenly we’re both siding this BS.
Yea it seems like republicans always get the benefit of the doubt and dems have to perfect. As they say dems fall in love, republicans fall in line. I had hoped we learned from 2016 to at least fall in line some. But nope here we are.
Consistent_Laziness | 4 hours ago
It’s always upset me about republicans it’s their one quality that makes the formidable. They fall in line no matter what.
Honestly dems should be two factions. And a candidate will never be able to bring both together. The moderate dem and the much further left liberal dem.
Take Bernie and Hillary as a figure head of this example. Once Bernie was out the Bernie supports couldn’t fall in line and sat out in droves. Because it wasn’t far enough left. So dems lost. Whereas republicans largely voted the same, your aforementioned “get in line”. In 2016 election trump had 63million votes. Thats only 3 million more than Romney had in 2012. And McCain had ~60 million votes as well. So trump didn’t even win it, dems gave it away.
And we continue to do this over and over. Then the most aggravating part is people bitch and moan but don’t vote or vote friggin independent because “both sides”.
MTVs_DanCortese | 5 hours ago
This is an area where I can see politicians who excel at the podcast format getting a huge leg up. It would do a lot of good for these elected officials to sit down for regular hour-long Q&As with assorted journalists and provide non-scripted responses. Would they always nail it? Probably not, but it gives them a chance to come off as genuine human beings who are explaining what they're trying to get done
che-che-chester | 3 hours ago
Newsom, Buttigieg and Shapiro can talk off-the-cuff about any issue and won't hesitate to go into the lion's den. Does that make them "the best" Dem candidate for 2028? Not necessarily, but it's an absolutely massive advantage. And Trump may sound like an idiot, but he'll talk about literally any issue with anyone. Meanwhile, Kamala stuck to carefully crafted answers and did mostly friendly interviews.
HumorAccomplished611 | 3 hours ago
Pretty sure it came out that rogan refused to interview her afterwards. Not the other way around.
che-che-chester | 2 hours ago
My understanding is she was onboard but the scheduling simply didn't work out. She offered to have Rogan meet her somewhere else but he doesn't travel for interviews and didn't want to make an exception for only her.
HumorAccomplished611 | 2 hours ago
I dunno. Him endorsing trump so soon after makes me not believe him very much
The disputed points
|Issue|Rogan's account|Harris camp's account| |:-|:-|:-| |Who backed out|Harris "never committed" to his show|Campaign chief Jennifer O'Malley Dillon authorized giving Rogan what he asked for, an in-studio Austin interview on Oct 25| |Oct 25|He says he offered to do Harris the same night as Trump|His team declined Oct 25 as his "personal day," then he taped Trump that day| |Length|They offered an abbreviated, roughly 45-minute version; his shows typically run about 3 hours|Time constraints in the final stretch of the campaign| |Marijuana|He suggested Harris wanted to avoid legalization talk because of her prosecuting record|Aides said marijuana was one of the topics they actually pitched joe rogan insists harris team lied suggesting he 'f +6|
che-che-chester | 2 hours ago
I don't listen to Rogan, don't know that much about him and don't have an opinion on whether he wanted the interview. But as a businessman and podcaster, I would think he would want the biggest interview of the year (along with Trump).
dust4ngel | 5 hours ago
> when pushed, he couldn't give any details about what that meant. True morons
i think if you go to a football game, and find a pile of people wearing Team A jerseys, you will reliably find them saying "team A is the best in the world, hands down, team B are 100% losers, if team B won it's because the ref was paid off" etc, and they don't think that any of this is necessarily true from a factual perspective - e.g. if you sent some scientists to investigate their claims, they would be like "lol, what are you doing". their speech is performative of 1) group membership and 2) increasing the status of their in-group.
i think when you talk to trump supporters, you're largely seeing the same thing - the claims they make aren't intended to be factual, empirically-verifiable statements; they're intended to perform group membership and status-enhancement.
obviously, a person like this should not be voting - but if you want to understand their behavior and not be driven up the wall, i think this is one way.
HumorAccomplished611 | 3 hours ago
Noam chomsky said he was very surprised listening to a radio show where the coach was on when people would call in with very detailed and nuanced perspective on players and plays that was in depth enough to rival the couches.
So I think your analogy is a bit off.
dust4ngel | 2 hours ago
the people yelling "the ref is blind!" at the TV simply do not believe this to be factual information
Efficient_Resist_287 | 8 hours ago
Thank you!!! Anyone with a basic understanding of Econ 101 and basic US history Depression era should have known this was an economic own goal.
The fact that these so called bankers knew better but still went with it is what rose my blood pressure!!!!
https://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-tariffs-jamie-dimon-c3655fec
poriomaniac | 7 hours ago
The ones who allowed it to happen all got rich. It was blatant robbery and they got away with it and the world will never be the same.
Efficient_Resist_287 | 7 hours ago
This was pure government thievery.
These business and government folks got together and taxed the US consumers, and now the refund is going back to the corporations. This is so infuriating!!!!
I swear Revolutions started for less…the feds and private sector stole from us.
smika | 7 hours ago
What’s been interesting to me has been why prices have not risen higher due to tariffs. I’ve been surprised at how “mild” inflation has been given what’s been happening.
This report explains it: prices would literally have dropped for these categories of goods. So it’s not so much that his tariffs “aren’t that bad” and more that we missed out on a period of profound economic relief.
Deadeye313 | 7 hours ago
Oh, there was economic relief...for him, his family and his rich buddies. At the expense of the rest of us.
Infinite-4-a-moment | 3 hours ago
Hey now, I think a lot of us assumed that a chunk of the inflation was also from this stupid ass war with Iran. So there is a small surprise here.
ripChazmo | 8 hours ago
This isn't news. Anyone who understands anything about anything knew this would happen. Trump's a moron, obviously, but I wonder if in school, this was the only time he perked up and hard wired into his brain that tariffs were a boxing glove.
There's the other angle - more conspiratory - that he did this on purpose, to further tax Americans, to benefit the rich (since they all got their refunds that they didn't pass back to consumers).
The whole thing is a mess. This country elected a middle school bully to run the country, and now it's a fucking mess that Democrats will... again have to clean up.
DaddyRobotPNW | 7 hours ago
Anyone who understands anything about anything excludes a full third of American adults.
saulgoodman037 | 3 hours ago
I don’t understand anything about anything, but even I still knew Trump was bad from the beginning
Appropriate-Joke-806 | 4 hours ago
2/3rds
sly-3 | 4 hours ago
The tariffs gave further cover to raise prices, which would provide some salve for debt payments and losses on the corporate balance sheets. Record profits, skyrocketing salaries tied to stock price, and a handy dandy excuse. They also provided a gigantic pool of money that Vought could shuffle around to plug up budget holes elsewhere.
As for Dear Leader, he gets to act like the big-time mafia don that he always wanted to be.
Consistent_Laziness | 4 hours ago
And the policies that can aid to fix it will take time, which voters will deem is ineffective even while things are improving. Then dems will get tossed for republicans which will ruin it even further and rinse repeat until we are a pile of ash.
kea123456 | 7 hours ago
So tariffs caused inflation, inflation caused rate hikes, inflation and rate hikes caused the 10 year treasury yield to skyrocket, and the skyrocketing yields are causing mortgage rates to skyrocket.
Tariffs caused economic problems rippling through the entire American economy.
Decent-truth1712 | 8 hours ago
I can't believe there is even a debate about this FACT! Trump is the king of lies and and the stupidity of his supporters is dragging us all down.
ILoveTheAtomicBomb | 7 hours ago
Thing is 30% of his inbred supporters are still not going to believe it and claim we’re bringing in untold wealth. Well we are, just to Trump and everyone in his circle while the rest get bopped. Midterms folks, our final chance to have anything left of a country to save
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 8 hours ago
The thing about the Fed is they publish most of this stuff in blog posts that are just as easily accessible as any CNBC article, so remove the news bias and narrative construction, and just read the piece for yourself here: https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/10/how-fast-do-tariffs-pass-through-into-consumer-prices/
Ant6793 | 8 hours ago
This was a good read. Thanks for sharing.
[OP] One-Emu-1103 | 8 hours ago
That was published 2 days ago. It still begs the question why the just didn't come out and say that months especially as they knew that was happening.
QueenLuLuBelle | 8 hours ago
Because the Fed prioritizes accuracy over speed and it does not publish anything without feeling close to 100% confident that it will hold up to scrutiny.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 8 hours ago
Right, people mad that research at the Fed is held to a higher standard than gut feelings and mildly educated guesses in Reddit comments lol.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 8 hours ago
The only way you can possibly think that this hasn’t been an ongoing topic of discussion at the Fed - in blog posts, speeches, fed minutes, studies, etc - is if you’re literally not paying attention to anything the Fed is saying.
You think you’re criticizing the Fed but you’re really telling on yourself here lol.
Nojopar | 7 hours ago
The Fed can't continue to operate as if it is a bastion of knowledge on a hill that people must come to learn. That's antiquated in an era where the public increasingly discounts expert opinion. The Fed has to actively engage and no, a blog post isn't sufficient. There's a reason a whole slew of NSF RFPs are around getting science out of academia and into the public discourse because we academics are mostly awful at it, doesn't matter the discipline.
RashmaDu | 6 hours ago
I agree with the overall sentiment, but this isn't really applicable to tariffs specifically. The evidence there is extremely clear, and everyone in the media interviewed in the days after Liberation Day was completely explicit about tariffs being an absolutely terrible idea that would wreck the US economy if implemented as proposed, and severely harm it if toned down.
Of all the cases where you should accuse academia of being an ivory tower disconnected from the messes, this is really one of the least relevant cases. The evidence on tariffs is well-known, it was completely disputed at the time by economists everywhere (heck, the IMF ditched a candidate for their top research job because he had been mildly outspoken against the tariffs), and everyone and their mom saw this outcome coming.
In this very specific case, the problem is clearly just that 1) Trump genuinely does not understand what a tariff is and does 2) the people around him (Lutnick, Bessent, etc) are willing to lie about things that are obviously untrue and 3) they have enough of a media ecosystem that is willing to help them lie (fox News).
Nojopar | 6 hours ago
The Trump administration isn't the audience though. That was going to happen no mater what. The problem is that 'everyone and their mom' DIDN'T see this coming. They believed the administration's propaganda (let's call it what it is). Specifically in the case of tariffs, economist should have been on every social media outlet over and over and over explaining in simple terms why you, the worker, or you the voter is going to get hurt by this. I'm talking painfully simple terms. Then encourage those people to go call their Congress person and complain in this very specific case.
This was a slam dunk, easy to explain and easy to know what's going to happen even before you have data confirming that it would happen. Most of what you're talking about was inside baseball and the inside baseball nerds were paying attention. Their mothers, however, were not. That's the problem. We get too mired in our own culture and ecosystem we forget that most people don't think about economics even a little bit. Those are the people we have to reach, not the willing to know. They're already listening.
RashmaDu | 6 hours ago
But they did? The non-Fox News channels routinely had economists on explaining why this was an absolutely terrible idea, Justin Wolfers most notably. No one in mainstream news outside of right-wing propaganda was pretending that this was anything other than a terrible, stupid, destructive idea. More people should have pushed against it, sure, but to be honest, I'm not sure how many people would have been pushed to call their representative by seeing one more Justin Wolfers reel that would not have done so otherwise.
You yourself point out that this was made possible thanks to "right-wing propaganda" (we can agree that's what it is). Maybe that's the source of the problem? That such an institution exists and is influential to begin with? I really don't see why it's such a difficult case to make that most of the blame lies with the US' biggest news channel being a propaganda machine, that cannot be counteracted by economists telling other non-watchers stuff they would already agree with
Nojopar | 5 hours ago
But they didn't enough, or even the right way. One of the biggest faults with academics is their stodgy unwillingness to declare anything. Most people don't live like that. Look at the language we use about inflation. Will this action cause prices to go up? Economists almost universally recoil from saying "Yes. Prices will go up" because that's a declarative statement. We like wishy-washy phrases like "upward pressure on prices". We need the room to acknowledge nuances might mean outcomes aren't exactly in line with predictions given unforeseen circumstances that might, in fact, blah blah blah BLAH! We can't even say it, so why would anyone believe it in the first place?
I don't think it's terribly productive or even useful to assign blame. Is it Fox News fault? Most certainly. Will that ever change? No fuckin' way. That propaganda is like structural unemployment - always there, can't do anything about it, but not an excuse to ignore what we can do.
RashmaDu | 3 hours ago
> Economists almost universally recoil from saying "Yes. Prices will go up" because that's a declarative statement. We like wishy-washy phrases like "upward pressure on prices".
Again, they did this. I can’t be bothered to find specific links, but just look up Justin Wolfers, Paul Krugman, or whoever your favourite academic economist commentator is. They did this, in no unclear terms: tariffs in the way they were implemented are stupid and would cause prices to increase. This was repeated over and over, both inside the US and outside.
As you yourself point out, that’s not the issue! The issue is that a sufficiently large share of the US fundamentally are not engaged with this sort of thing (and I seriously doubt that Paul Krugman starting a daily Tiktok will make the median American understand comparative advantage), and half of the ones that are nominally engaged watch Fox News and never engage with actual reality.
I genuinely think you have a broadly not incorrect distaste for how academics engage with public discourse, that is just genuinely not applicable in this very specific case. Your experience is just incorrect if you actually followed news cycles at the time, what you are claiming happened is just wrong. Of course you can always do more, but at some point it would be good to actually address the source of the problem (banning Fox News, effectively) rather than just have economists appear on live TV 24/7 or TikTok saying “Trump is bad at economics” (anyone who cares or will listen already knows that)
Nojopar | 2 hours ago
Again, they didn't do it in the right places to the right audiences! Justin Wolfers, Paul Krugman, whomever you want publishing an NYT Editorial piece isn't hitting the right audience. It's never going to hit the right audience no matter how many times you do it. You can't just preach to the choir then throw your hands up in the air in defeat when that doesn't work.
This issue is that a sufficiently large share of the US doesn't see a particular reason they should be engaged with this sort of thing. Economics doesn't get into the game enough. Outside 'what's the fed going to do to your mortgage/credit card rates' every quarter, economists play next to no part in people's lives, at least in their perception. All they ever talk about is 'markets', which most people simply don't have any mental stake in them. Even if their 401(k) is heavily invested, they've got a person that does that for them. If people are disengaged you can't expect them to suddenly start listening to what you have to say. You can't just come out when it's time to shine and expect everyone to gather around and listen.
You've got to lay the ground work over years so when something comes out about tariffs you've already go the trust built in. You have to make it interesting and entertaining. No, Paul Krugman going on TikTok won't do anything because he's like every other freakin' economist - ivy league educated old white person in tweed. The minute someone like that starts talking, people tune out. You need someone younger, more whatever kids call 'hip' now, who can communicate in ways people can grasp what they're saying. And you need that personality to be doing this for months before an economic crisis, not in the middle of it.
And it'd help if maybe economists occasional talk about workers and worker issues instead of capital, but that's a side rant.
Barnyard_Rich | 5 hours ago
You're being aggressively downvoted in this comment because we are in an election cycle here in the US.
u/RIP_Soulja_Slim always demands zero anaysis from any source outside the government. You are to take and read government reports in their full and not rely on any professionals to explain it to you because it's not your job.
u/RIP_Soulja_Slim brags about this being his job. There are others who brag about it as well. And we're supposed to do their job on top of actually doing our jobs. As everyone knows, that's not how this works. People have jobs, and need help having things summarized for them.
To call his link "easily digestible" is hilarious to me as I've actually published academic work and have recently discovered that my work itself has been repeatedly sourced in new academic work. Even those of us who publish can't keep up with EVERYTHING. Expecting working people to search through government releases is purposefully hiding the ball, which is what u/RIP_Soulja_Slim does on this subbreddit does in an honestly singular way.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 5 hours ago
Oh look, the dude who follows me around reddit constantly trying to make everything in to a fight.
> There are others who brag about it as well. And we're supposed to do their job on top of actually doing our jobs. As everyone knows, that's not how this works. People have jobs, and need help having things summarized for them.
You do whatever job you want, if you want to be informed about the topics you're interested in then yes, there is some minimum amount of effort there required on your behalf. You don't need things summarized, it takes maybe 20-30 minutes a week to stay well informed here. You want things summarized because you don't want to put in the effort. That's fine, but own up to it.
>To call his link "easily digestible" is hilarious to me
It's quite literally a blog post, written for the general public, not academic works.
Speaking of doing the work, clicking the link is an important aspect of doing the work required to learn something. If you clicked the link here, you'd see that people at the Fed took their academic works and summarized them in an easily digestible format for you.
People that want to learn will, and people that don't want to learn will find ways to blame everyone but themselves for their being uninformed, including the Fed or I guess the guy on reddit who had the audacity to put the link in front of them while they were scrolling.
Take care,
Barnyard_Rich | 5 hours ago
Let me be clear:
As strongly as you feel the American people shouldn't be allowed to read analyses of economic data is how strongly I feel in not caring about your rage against the actual study called economics.
You're a pure propagandist, and that's fine, but I'm allowed to laugh at you, read analyses of economic data, and comment on them until the mods of this subreddit change the rules. Which they may never, so I comment away.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 5 hours ago
> As strongly as you feel the American people shouldn't be allowed to read analyses of economic data is how strongly I feel in not caring about your rage against the actual study called economics.
I have no idea what extreme lack of basic literacy has lead you to think this, but it's certainly not based on anything I've ever said lol.
But this is your MO. You're a crazed right wing nutjob who spends all their time praising Joe Rogan, and you've grown irrationally angry at anyone on the left who's capable of citing the hordes of data that make Trump look bad. So you follow me around pretending like whatever coocoo stuff you've cooked up is the real thing, and somehow that the person who's linking the research and saying "read for yourself" is wrong lol.
Look man, I've got no intent on engaging with you. I'm sure the next reply will be something even more absurd, and I'm sure you'll never once be able to actually cite a time I said the crazy shit you constantly accuse everyone here of saying. But it's not worth the time. Carry on begging for validation I guess.
ShitDollop | 4 hours ago
Asking people to read beyond a clearly biased (and almost always misrepresentative ) headline is leading you to post all this whining? My lord.
Yes if you want to discuss economics you should have a basic understanding of what you’re trying to discuss. Same as if we were talking about cooking and you insisted we actually talk about movie theatre projectors.
Barnyard_Rich | 2 hours ago
Username checks out, oh right, I've used that on you before because you white knight for misinformation, disinformation, and general anti-intellectualism.
I honestly couldn't be more proud to have someone like you be this furious I'm allowed to speak truth publicly.
dust4ngel | 5 hours ago
> u/RIP_Soulja_Slim always demands zero anaysis
making this a conversation about individuals is childish, not to mention irrelevant
defaultedebt | 3 hours ago
They often have these outbursts, but they seem to be getting worse each time.
Barnyard_Rich | 4 hours ago
Hilariously, he'd disapprove at you being allowed to offer this analysis.
Expect him to condescend to you about not letting the people read the original comments, and instead daring to analyze.
dust4ngel | 4 hours ago
my man, take it to DMs if you have to get into a personal vendetta
Barnyard_Rich | 2 hours ago
Nah, I take it public when there is bad behavior and people acting in bad faith.
You're free to attend Cornell and be silent.
dust4ngel | 2 hours ago
agree that me telling you to take a personal conversation to DMs is literally gang rape.
Barnyard_Rich | 2 hours ago
I'm done being told I'm not allowed to laugh at free comedy when people such as yourself shove your comedy down my throat. Since you force yourself to star in a dark comedy about failure of spirit, you should at least enjoy it. Comedies are supposed to be fun.
DeltaFoxtrot144 | 8 hours ago
Because they are in on the grift, now that the political winds are shifting the media is trying to say look see we've been critical you can trust us we're on your side. When in reality the owners are on Trump's side and are keeping information slow dripping.
QueenLuLuBelle | 8 hours ago
Please don't believe everything you read. The Fed is not in on a grift, that's really tin foil hat thinking.
[OP] One-Emu-1103 | 8 hours ago
I remember reading something about someone named Lisa Cook and Jerome Powell, the former head who had to go the Supreme Court because of political pressure from Trump.
I am sure that had nothing to do with it. /s
RashmaDu | 6 hours ago
Yeah, it genuinely has nothing to do with it. Those people literally went to court because they didn't fold to pressure from Trump and he keeps harassing them.
You're speaking out of your ass on things you do not understand. The evidence on tariffs has been clear for decades, this report is in no way unexpected, and the Fed has been reporting on this for a year and a half, as a comment elsewhere in the thread has laid out in detail.
You're spreading a baseless conspiracy theory that doesn't even make sense
Full-Priority2946 | 8 hours ago
Dude what the fuck is up with literally brain dead comments on this platform? Reddit has an insane logorrhea problem
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 6 hours ago
It would be a good idea to maybe read just a smidge more then eh? Because you're using the Fed going to court to protect their people from political retribution and winning as evidence that the Fed is somehow compromised by politicians?
See, this is, again, one of those things where you're showing how little effort you've put in to learning before forming your very confident thoughts.
082426grateful | 8 hours ago
Definitely noticed the increase in cost of living in last year. I had wanted to step up my savings effort, but even with a 4% raise at work, I’m going to have to cut savings back again. It’s just bleeding our cash to buy the groceries and the damn gas.
bearbrannan | 8 hours ago
at least your raise outpaced the supposed inflation we only got 2% and yesterday they laid off two co workers.
Consistent_Laziness | 4 hours ago
I got a pay cut :/
BillNyeForPrez | 3 hours ago
I got a 3% raise which is effectively a pay cut.
Square_Level4633 | an hour ago
Isn't it crazy that tariffs are supposed to make import more expensive, but Made in America and domestic goods also got expensive as well. Why is that?
[OP] One-Emu-1103 | 8 hours ago
I asked this somewhere else but I have to ask it again - Why did it took them so long to figure to figure out that this inflation was all due to Trump and his cockamame ideas?
Popular-Ordinary5110 | 8 hours ago
Took them that long to prove it
stirrainlate | 8 hours ago
Good answer. The fed has long said something like: all else being equal tariffs will probably create upward pressure. But macro has a lot of noise around the signal so saying things definitively takes an annoyingly long time.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 4 hours ago
> The fed has long said something like: all else being equal tariffs will probably create upward pressure.
Funny enough, the Fed basically spelled out how broad tariffs would impact the economy in Nov of last year.
https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2025/11/economic-effects-of-tariffs/
>The initial increase in the unemployment rate together with the drop in inflation both suggest that tariffs act like a brake on the demand side of the economy. Firms may withhold investment spending until there is more clarity on future trade policy, since tariff policies will prompt them to reconsider how they arrange their supply chains. Consumers may respond cautiously to the new environment by slowing down their demand for products and services. Over time, the economy adjusts: The unemployment rate returns to its original level or even declines slightly, whereas inflation picks up and peaks three years after the initial change in tariffs, relative to the scenario where tariffs remain unchanged.
Now, April of 25 you get tariffs, summer of 25 heading in to the fall was the worst labor market we've seen in a non recession period in at least 2 decades, fall of 25 you begin to see stabilization in labor and consumption recovering, by Fall/Winter you're seeing inflation start back up, and then accelerate through the spring.
Just seems like they about nailed it, historical analysis right in line with what we've seen so far.
Problem is, everyone's screaming "tariffs are inflationary" so trying to explain that well, maybe deflationary and bad for jobs for a bit, then inflationary, but it takes a lot of time falls on a lot of deaf ears lol.
082426grateful | 8 hours ago
But those price impacts felt sure kicked in fast, as well as the increased quarterly profits.
Maybe had something to do with tariff refunds finally going to the companies, not being passed along to consumer in any way? THEN they tell us what we all knew, all along.
RashmaDu | 6 hours ago
> Maybe had something to do with tariff refunds finally going to the companies, not being passed along to consumer in any way? THEN they tell us what we all knew, all along.
I really don't see how the Fed releasing analysis more quickly would have changed this.
Theoretically, this isn't really new information. Every single economist, policymaker, and person with an ounce of critical thinking could have predicted this easily. This report adds stronger evidence, but not really surprising information.
Practically, it would have been very difficult to issue refunds to downstream consumers (you would need to prove that an increase in costs was due to tariffs), whereas the importer themselves have an actual tariff bill that can just be refunded at the press of a button.
Also, your accusation would imply that the Fed is cooperating with Trump on this? Trump's #1 most hated independent public institution, which has no reason to help him?
082426grateful | 6 hours ago
I appreciate your comments on this. My mind will not be swayed in my assertion that Fed Reserve is not independent of political influence, as Wall Street influences both Fed and elected politicians.
Wall Street, as the backbone of our new economy (not the middle class, not the working class), exerts overt levels of influence on policy and decision making.
I will not listen to an argument that says otherwise. The tail wags the dog.
RashmaDu | 6 hours ago
> I will not listen to an argument that says otherwise
You will not listen to well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments? What a great way to engage with reality.
You are the one making an argument that does not rely on straightforward interpretations of reality. Do you have any evidence that whatever influence Wall Street has on the Fed specifically or likely led to this report being slowed down?
That doesn't even make any sense, by the way. Wall Street hated Liberation Day, because as much as we can hate them, they are not generally complete idiots; they want to make money, and the current chaotic environment is not a ripe ground for moneymaking. Sure, some small groups of people are profiting from insider info on tariffs. But that's not the people you are accusing.
[OP] One-Emu-1103 | 8 hours ago
I don't know about that. That's like saying that it would take time to figure out that the reason why everything outside was flooded as it was either from the hurricane directly overhead or a broken water main.
shezadaa | 8 hours ago
This is why anything formal and official is so damn annoying.
There is a non zero chance of the drain being blocked. Everyone knows the hurricane has dropped a shitton of water, but to say it was definitely the hurricane, that caused the flood, you would need to measure the amount of water dropped by the hurricane per minute, and then compare it to the average water dropped during a rain, and what the drainage was designed to carry.
Then you need to show it to another expert so that your work is checked. And finally you type up your report and publish it.
Full-Priority2946 | 8 hours ago
The benefit is that it can be used as expert testimony in a court of law
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 8 hours ago
>Why did it took them so long to figure to figure out that this inflation was all due to Trump
Classic case of redditors being certain a thing doesn't exist because they've never seen it.
Here's just a few:
Pre-emptive modeling in May of 2025: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/detecting-tariff-effects-on-consumer-prices-in-real-time-20250509.html
October 2025: https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/oct/how-tariffs-are-affecting-prices-2025
March of this year: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-slow-climb-how-tariffs-gradually-raised-retail-prices-in-2025-20260305.html
April of this year: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/detecting-tariff-effects-on-consumer-prices-in-real-time-part-II-20260408.html
June: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/paying-more-and-buying-less-2025-tariffs-and-us-household-spending.htm
August: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/current-policy-perspectives/2026/how-much-did-labor-productivity-gains-offset-inflation-impacts-2025-tariffs.aspx
I'm sure there's copious others, these were easily available within a second.
Pretending like the Fed hasn't been discussing this since day one really says a lot about how little you're paying attention to what the Fed says.
Also, expecting the Fed to write articles the way Redditors write comments - with stuff like "it's 100% Trump's fault full stop" is nonsensical. They're economists, they're going to publish the data and interpret it in a clean manner. Which is what they've been doing.
Nojopar | 7 hours ago
This is a classic example of 'academia' (meaning research broadly, not just higher education) talking amongst themselves is important, but not the end of the conversation. It's arguably more important to get this information out to the public. Sticking them on a website and assuming the public has the knowledge to read and interpret what's intended for peer readership doesn't cut it.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 7 hours ago
This news article is based on a blog post the Fed made, a blog post explicitly meant to do the thing you say they're not doing. Each of these branches runs a similar blog, expressly meant for public education.
At some point we need to stop blaming others and take on a bit of personal responsibility. The information is there, its accessible, it's being created for the masses. What more would you want? The Fed to be hiring influencers to flood a tiktok feed with economic data?
The people who are interested in learning about this are consuming this information (I'm on the mailing list of over a dozen different economic entities - and have been spending my saturday mornings for years parsing through that week's information). Those who aren't are not, and are still trying to blame the institutions for their own knowledge gaps. All too frequently posts here with comprehensive sourcing, explanations, data, etc are downvoted simply because they're not in line with people's vibes.
We've got to stop acting like low IQ people's desire for confirmation bias fulfillment is the fault of institutions not fulfilling said confirmation bias.
Nojopar | 6 hours ago
Blogs are outdated. Nobody reads that stuff anymore. That's 20 year old thinking. You can't just write a blog post, issue a press release, and then go around congratulating each other on a job well done. That's the point. What we did 50 years ago doesn't cut it anymore.
Flood tikcok? FUCK YES! Threads, Instagram, YouTube, any goddamn thing you can find. We're beyond the age of publish on a government site or a peer reviewed journal and call it a day. Get a podcast. Get on 50 podcasts. Start a YouTube channel. Get some media consultants in. This is the modern landscape.
We can no longer constrain ourselves to the people who want to hear our lectures. That's how you end up with this nightmare scenario. Do economists want to end up like climate change experts? Right but utterly ignored so effectively pointless?
We've got to stop being condescending to people and figure out how to effectively communicate what we're doing. Because we're failing miserably at it.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 6 hours ago
Blogs are not outdated, plenty of people read these things. They may not be in fashion among the sort of aggressively uneducated person on reddit who thinks they have it all figured out, but that's not the audience. Blogs are written for those who want to learn.
>Flood tikcok? FUCK YES! Threads, Instagram, YouTube, any goddamn thing you can find.
IDK if you're new to this sub or not, but if so stick around for just a bit. Watch how people react when information coming from any of these expert sources is slightly out of line with what the uneducated masses want to hear. Most of the most well informed people on this sub are found downvoted, because nuance and detail is inherently too much effort to consume for the plurality of individuals. Tiktoks don't fix the general human aversion to learning detailed information. All you'll do is move the refusal to read excuses like "this is Fed propaganda, ignore it" from reddit comments to tiktok stitches.
Horses and water man, horses and water.
Nojopar | 6 hours ago
Yes, Blogs are outdated. Plenty of people read the printed newspaper (myself included) but nobody is calling the printed newspaper current technology.
The aggressively uneducated is the exact audience economists need to embrace. That's the mistaken. We can't keep talking in a bubble and nodding to each other. We already know the material. A stovepipe doesn't work anymore. We've got to get over ourselves and our superiority.
For example:
>Most of the most well informed people on this sub are found downvoted, because nuance and detail is inherently too much effort to consume for the plurality of individuals. Tiktoks don't fix the general human aversion to learning detailed information.
Which is why we have to learn to do it better and different. Nuances are nice for peer review but utterly useless for the public. We can't keep living in our bubble assuming people will listen or care about what we do. In fact, they're actively working to ignore what we know. That's because we've surrendered the narrative because communication is hard and we're too lazy to learn to do it well.
Physicists rightfully critique Neil deGrasse Tyson all day and night on his science but you know what nobody can critique him on? His skills at being relatable and communicate with the general public. He's done more for raising the awareness and interest in science than anyone in the public sphere, even Carl Sagan. We need a Tyson for economics.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 5 hours ago
> Which is why we have to learn to do it better and different. Nuances are nice for peer review but utterly useless for the public. We can't keep living in our bubble assuming people will listen or care about what we do.
Nuances aren't nice, they're the line between accuracy and inaccuracy. The world does not fit in to simple binary outcomes with plain easy explanations. So what you're effectively saying is that we should proactively dumb things down to the point of being incorrect just so stupid people who have no desire to actually learn these things can maybe have a chance at digesting them, but will likely reject it based on vibes anyway.
I'm just going to outright disagree on that. Integrity matters. And if integrity and adhering to the fact that nuances within outcomes are just as important as the outcomes is offputting to some, I'm perfectly fine with that. We shouldn't be advocating that professionals sacrifice their integrity and adherence to accuracy just to cater to the sort of brainrot social media user that thinks reading 500 words is a lot of work. Those people aren't listening anyway, they might lie to you and say they are, but all they want is to exercise confirmation bias.
jhdragon742 | 5 hours ago
I don't think they're saying have tiktoks instead of deeply researched nuanced blog posts, its in addition to. Science & government in general (which includes economics) need massive PR campaigns to regain public trust and support and some of that is gonna have to be targeting the lowest common denominator. It shouldn't be a replacement, it should be a supplement, because those same base uneducated voters seem to be largely determining our economic direction to our detriment in the current political system. If we want integrity to matter, we have advertise why now, we can no longer rely on it being self evident.
Milksaucey | 2 hours ago
Tiktoks of economic data isn't going to trend or be viral. You're putting the cart before the horse here. Attention is being monopolized and there's nothing you can do to make knowledge sexier.
The issue isn't that we don't have enough bread to feed the masses. They simply prefer cake. Dumping a ton of sugar into bread doesn't just make it more palatable. It also just makes it more cake.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 2 hours ago
> I don't think they're saying have tiktoks instead of deeply researched nuanced blog posts, its in addition to.
Yes, and what I am saying is that's not a practical possibility. You can't dumb down most of this stuff sufficiently that it fits in a short form video in an accurate manner, especially not if you want to make it entertaining for the sort of person who can't be bothered to read two paragraphs.
Sacrificing accuracy is inherent to this idea, which is why it's never going to happen.
Nojopar | 3 hours ago
YES! "Trust me, I'm an economist" no longer has the steam it did 30/40/50 years ago. The only people who can correct that is economists and I'm utterly baffled at how much they are dragging their feet in doing so.
It's not just economics that has that issue either, but this is the Economics subreddit.
Nojopar | 3 hours ago
>Nuances aren't nice, they're the line between accuracy and inaccuracy.
This is a great example of what I'm talking about!
Accuracy is great in a peer reviewed journal. But the world just doesn't work like that. We can't wait for 99.9999% accuracy to make decisions. That's not how people operate. People make thousands of decisions a week with incomplete and imperfect information that isn't 100% accurate. We're too afraid of being 'wrong' that we're rather not say anything.
>So what you're effectively saying is that we should proactively dumb things down to the point of being incorrect
No, absolutely not and I strongly disagree that's the implication. I'm saying that you've got to simplify the complex and know what you're saying is probably right. Not absolutely, probably.
Economists are far too removed from people. They need to get in there and mix it up a little, maybe start actually caring about the people the proport to study. It's all well and good for economists like yourself to be safe in an ivory tower were the consequences of accuracy or inaccuracy are essentially non-existent. But people are dealing with wage insecurity, housing insecurity, food security, and all the health/social outcomes from those things. Yet we can't be arsed to give a fuck because 'integrity'? That's bullshit and we both know it.
Nobody is saying "give up accuracy". I'm saying figure out what you know and tell actually get off your ass and sell it to the public. That should be easy. If you can't, go find people who can.
The_Keg | 4 hours ago
>Powell says high inflation caused by Trump's tariffs | REUTERS
Dec 2025...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7xVVHb6B5s
what now?
Nojopar | 3 hours ago
"We tried one thing one place and it didn't work. WE GIVE UP!"
Now, see what kind of academic publishing career you can do following that strategy. But with the public? Yeah, that'll work juuuuussssttt fine /s
trilobyte-dev | 2 hours ago
At this point in the back and forth it looks like you’re just arguing because you want to win. You’ve moved the goalposts a few times and what you’ve written makes you come off like someone who can’t do anything for themselves and expects everyone else to spoon feed them everything. It’s ok to admit being wrong about something, acknowledge a lesson learned, and move on. Most people will respect that more than the digging in.
OrangeJr36 | 7 hours ago
They do, but much like you see with how hard conservatives shout down scientists on climate change, immigration, trans people, vaccines and much more, they are ignored and then threatened if they keep going.
Nojopar | 7 hours ago
And like climate change scientists, immigration advocates, trans advocates, vaccine advocates - economists have to work harder and do better. You don't get points for every shot your try, only the ones you make.
dingBat2000 | an hour ago
My understanding is that Federal reserve communication tools are currently under formal review so hold criticism and standby
082426grateful | 8 hours ago
Thanks for the links.
Perception and reality aren’t very far apart on this issue. Redditors can be a doomer group; myself included.
But we weren’t wrong in our assertion on this one topic, but we sure enjoyed the gaslighting about how wrong we were, initially. At this point, no Federal Reserve confirmation needed. Their credibility is suspect anyway.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 8 hours ago
Who was gaslighting you about tariffs? And why would the credibility of the Fed be suspect when they’re doing piles of deep dive research on this very topic?
TheGracefulCrane | 7 hours ago
I find a lot of people treat the news like a tree falling in tbe forest - if their social media algorithm doesnt plaster it all over their feed it basically doesnt exist
BradPittbodydouble | 6 hours ago
Bessent, Lutnick, and Trump mostly lol
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 5 hours ago
And because redditors are clueless, this is obviously the fault of the Fed lol.
BradPittbodydouble | 5 hours ago
Haha Powell from the start was very clear this would happen and the board was consistent, just no one was listening
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 5 hours ago
No one [on social media/reddit] was listening, but plenty of others were.
IIRC the Fed presser in April discussed waiting on rates because of tariffs, it was in their minutes too, and just spotted all throughout every other corner of their communication avenues haha.
Still, people find any reason to blame anyone but themselves when they find themselves not knowing something that was clearly communicated.
Shaskakmat | 8 hours ago
Well that Obama guy was highly suspicious, had to investigate him first
[OP] One-Emu-1103 | 8 hours ago
Goood one! 🤣🤣🤣
BradPittbodydouble | 8 hours ago
I think that's forgetting the very vocal people that were screaming it from the start. They'd just get drowned out by the admin lying about deals made and investments coming in and people would run with that as cover.
HeatWaveToTheCrowd | 8 hours ago
Smart people have known that tariffs lead to higher prices. But the messaging coming from this administration is to ignore facts, blame Biden, or claim the opposite it happening. Real question is whether these facts trickle down to the trailer parks or is even uttered on Faux News.
Alarmed_Guarantee140 | 8 hours ago
It didn’t. This was the plan. It’s in Project 2025, none of this is new.
canwehavepotatojokes | 8 hours ago
There is a massive propaganda arm protecting this government - you can thank US media laws allowing consolidation of media into the control of a few rich assholes.
Suitable-Option833 | 6 hours ago
Yes and unfortunately our media is owned by a handful of gop billionaires. People ask why dem accomplishments aren’t publicized as much, well the media isn’t working for them.
Street_Anxiety2907 | 6 hours ago
Yep, and frankly the federal reserve is plugged in deep to FOX NEWS and other sources for official numbers.
>There is a massive propaganda arm protecting this government
El_Guap | 8 hours ago
I think they were pretty busy with maxi pads on their ears or something…
MrsMiterSaw | 3 hours ago
What you are looking at here is not an opinion based on principles, it's a hard analysis and tracking of this data.
To calculate it officially, you first need the data itself. The data only solidifies several months after.
On top of that, Trump's tariffs are all over the place, and change constantly. So to follow those price changes, you need to spend a lot of time analyzing dozens and dozens of suppliers and getting their data to analyze it.
mrtrololo27 | 8 hours ago
Economists really are proving they're not all too different from astrologers...
082426grateful | 8 hours ago
Waiting for a change in sentiment toward this second term of Dear Leader?
I can see that members of the party are starting to wake up to the damage done to their own campaigns and electability.
Long-Emu-7870 | 6 hours ago
What's odd is how much little inflation there is today. I guess if one had time one could construct a reasonable basket of goods prices to check.
KoldPurchase | 7 hours ago
Actually, I believe it's a repeat of previous assessments.
GLHR_ | 5 hours ago
* Trump sales tax. If only someone could have warned us. I still cant believe he/they are not consistently called out for not knowing or pretending to not know how tariffs work.
bbflu | 7 hours ago
Sure but let’s not forget that profits grew at 10.2% annually since 2019 for the private sector. Also after-tax profits as a share of gross value added hit 19.4%, the highest since the series began in the 1940s. That money was extracted from consumers, demonstrating firms have tremendous power to set prices independent from input costs.
cheweychewchew | 7 hours ago
Gee ya don't say? You mean all the super intelligent econ folks on this sub who condescendingly told Reddit that we're idiots for thinking the numbers were bullshit.....were wrong? Nooooooooo waaaaaay.
Calm_One_1228 | 7 hours ago
No one saw that coming ! Who could have predicted that raising the cost of bringing goods into the country and to market would result in higher costs ? No one !
Potential_Salt_5780 | 8 hours ago
Trump has failed upwards his entire life. He has never done anything successful except scamming people. It is said that some people still believe he will save the country. I guess that is why he is a cult leader.
Yesterday_Infinite | 8 hours ago
They knew the whole time, they just really didn't want to incur the wrath of the administration, Fox News, pundits and the peanut gallery. Numbers don't matter anymore, spin does.
ztreHdrahciR | 7 hours ago
And even if tariffs were largely removed tomorrow, prices will remain sticky. I was on an earnings call for a manufacturer after IEPPA was struck down. Analyst asked if they would lower prices and the CFO said no. That the customers had become normalized to these prices.
And those of us with (only) 401ks are slaves to earnings growth so we can survive if we actually ever retire.
So we don't protest too loudly about consumer prices because we need high stock prices
Picks6x | 5 hours ago
I figured out the game folks. It was never about Hormuz, Hormuz was the battle but the war was for the US bond market. The last few months Galibaf hasn't been posting shit about the strait or the action in it, instead he's been posting about breaking the US bond market. It was never Iran vs hegseth it was always Iran vs Bessant
peaceful_pancakes | 3 hours ago
Wrong, corporations used the excuse of tariffs to raise prices...kind of like the way they blamed "supply chain issues" post covid to extract more wealth for themselves.
teshh | 8 hours ago
Look I love hating on incompetent and corrupt institutions as much as anyone else but the Fed has talked about tariffs being the source for months.
But it takes TIME to actually gather data and PROVE that hypothesis. Screaming at our institutions to just say whatever floats our boats is inevitably going to lead to us being lied to.
MrPicklePop | 7 hours ago
Partially due to tariffs, but mostly due to pandemic era stimulus response.
M2 money supply went from $15.5 trillion in February 2020 to $21.8 trillion by March 2022. That’s a ~41% increase in two years.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
OrangeJr36 | 5 hours ago
I didn't realize that Trump did more COVID stimulus in the past 12 months?
Can you cite where he did that to cause the change in item prices as studied by the Fed?
The paper does a pretty good job of isolating effects other than tariffs, so if there's a secret COVID stimulus they missed that would be good to point out to them.
MrPicklePop | 3 hours ago
I never said Trump did more COVID stimulus in the last 12 months. I’m talking about the inflation we’ve experienced since 2020, not just the tariff effects in this study. There’s also a lag in the debt markets. Debt issued at historically low rates doesn’t all mature overnight. As that debt rolls over at higher rates, interest costs increase, putting even more pressure on federal deficits and potentially adding to inflationary pressure down the road. The CBO has already projected rising interest costs for precisely this reason.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62105
TiredOfDebates | 8 hours ago
The headline is wrong.
I mean even the article is behind a paywall, so few are reading it.
But the article is citing THIS "staff report" published by three economists working for the NY Federal Reserve:
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr1201.pdf
I'm familiar with these kinds of reports issued by Federal Reserve economists. They always start with the following disclaimer:
>This paper presents preliminary findings and is being distributed to economists and other interested readers solely to stimulate discussion and elicit comments. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author(s).
This is not the position of the NY Federal Reserve Bank. It is the preliminary findings of three individual economists, who have research positions within the economic research division. The headline (and people here are assuming) that this is a broadly supported position within the Federal Reserve. It is not. It is solely the (professional, and preliminary) opinion of three economists.
...
Finally, and I'm actually reading just abstract, introduction, and conclusions (results) of the research paper this article is citing... I think the reporter just straight up fabricated the headline. The research report does not say ("Inflation was entirely due to tariffs"). The journalist didn't read this academic economics research, and is just claiming some research into tariffs and consumer prices supports the journalists' agenda.
But feel free to read the actual research in full and find out where the cited research supports the journalist's claim.
...
It is very wrong to claim that short-term inflation can be attributed to any single cause; and the NY Fed isn't claiming that.
Dull_Investigator358 | 8 hours ago
Abstract
Tariffs raise the prices of goods made at home, not just the imports they tax —an effect that standard pass-through estimates largely miss. Studying the 2025 U.S. tariffs, we find that about 26 percent of the tariff increase passes through to consumer prices. These estimates are measured relative to less-exposed goods and hold aggregate conditions fixed. The direct effect accounts for 64 percent of this increase, as tariffs raise the consumer prices of foreign varieties of a good. The remaining 36 percent arises indirectly — tariffs raise the cost of imported inputs used by U.S. producers, and domestic producers raise their markups because they face less competition from higher-priced imports. The direct effect passes through quickly, since tariffs raise import prices almost immediately, but the indirect effect takes nine to twelve months to work its way through supply chains. As a result, tariffs have a larger and more drawn-out impact on consumer prices than the direct effect alone would suggest.
YPCrumble | 2 hours ago
Wow, so only 26% of tariffs are passed to the consumer. This report seems to be directly contradicting the often heard quote “the consumer pays the tariffs”.
Basically looking at this report tariffs are an effective tax leading other countries to devalue their currency or reduce prices for 74% of the tax, and consumers only pay 26%.
Am I missing something? GP seems correct in their assessment that the headline isn’t correct.
Preme2 | 8 hours ago
Sure it was. When a Democrat is in office or if they potentially secure both senate and house then inflation on everyday items will be entirely due to price gouging.
The commentary is well documented. The data will only be reported if it supports the narrative, otherwise we’ll never hear about it.
After the midterms I’m prepared for people to start changing their tune a bit. Not entirely, since the president is still the president, but the democrats need some well documented wins (beyond Trump) to retain/have a chance in 2028. Everything can’t be doom and gloom. They’ll need to point to something economically. Most will still be struggling, it’s an administration problem currently and will shift to a personal problem in the coming years.
Microplasticsharts | 7 hours ago
Oh this should be good. Please explain how tariffs did not raise prices.
RashmaDu | 6 hours ago
Sorry, so your claim is that the broad unilateral tariffs, that have been credibly and near-universally documented as leading to increased prices, did not raise prices?
Tragicallyhip204 | 7 hours ago
It played a part but since covid, corporations have become greedy AF and raised prices on everything and shrunk the size of items. Seems like voting with your wallet is the only way to get attention to matters.
ispeektroof | 5 hours ago
It began as a supply chain issue during COVID, then came the profiteering. At this point I just think businesses are trying to destroy their consumer base with greed.
bodhidharma132001 | 8 hours ago
How much did it cost for them to do that study?
Also, if our comments must contain 140 characters, give a counter. I'm not going to sit here and count 'em!
Substantial-Elk4531 | 8 hours ago
Glad to see the government raising more taxes via new approach with tariffs. Raising tax rates helps the economy to grow and helps pay down the public debt. Everybody can afford to pay their fair share, so I'm not sure why anyone is complaining about this if they use public roads, libraries, schools, etc. If you don't like tariffs, you can move to a country which doesn't have tariffs, but good luck finding one. By staying in the USA you are consenting to paying your fair share via tariffs
BregoTheConqueror | 7 hours ago
Except the tariffs aren’t paying down any debts, the money collected was refunded to the corporations that “paid” the tariffs after they offloaded the costs by raising prices on Americans.
Substantial-Elk4531 | 7 hours ago
The tariffs go into the government budget, just like any other tax, so yes, it is objectively helping to pay down the debt
> the money collected was refunded to the corporations that “paid” the tariffs
Well this is a failure of the courts trying to return the money to the greedy corporations. Trump tried his best to raise our taxes, as he should, and we should just thank him for finally helping the American economy with higher tax rates.
Sam_Munhi | 5 hours ago
It's the job of Congress to set tax rates, not the President.
Substantial-Elk4531 | 3 hours ago
Actually, I think you'll find that the President does have the ability and power to adjust tax rates. And good thing, too, because we need rates to increase across the board if we're ever going to pay down the debt. You shouldn't complain about paying your fair share
RashmaDu | 3 hours ago
Well, it was found that in this case, he actually did not have the power to adjust rates. Womp womp.
Edit: lmfao, they blocked me. Always a sign of a good and thorough argument. Maybe the president shouldn't willingly do some illegal if he doesn't want it to be overturned by people whose job it is to overturn illegal things?
Substantial-Elk4531 | 3 hours ago
Courts ruling against fair share tax increases is just an obstacle to overcome. It doesn't mean that the effort is wrong
Sam_Munhi | 2 hours ago
You think tax rates need to increase across the board and you're celebrating Trump for his tariffs (a sales tax that is inherently regressive) when his signature legislative accomplishment was a major tax cut for the rich?
Oh, boy, you're just completely disconnected from reality.
Substantial-Elk4531 | 2 hours ago
Both Obama and Biden raised tariff rates, so I'm not sure what your problem with it is. I can only imagine two possibilities:
Either way ... can you just... not? Just pay your fair share. It's not hard. If you use the roads, schools, libraries, etc, we aren't asking you to do a lot except pay your fair share and stop complaining about it
RashmaDu | 3 hours ago
That’s funny, I remember Trump saying the tariffs had nothing to do with paying down the budget. Depending on the week, they were 1) a punitive measure against foreign enemies; 2) a way to balance the trade deficit (why? who knows!); 3) a way to reshore industries to the US; 4) a way to reduce debt (do note this goes against 3 in the long term).
Maybe this wasn’t a well thought-through policy idea? From Trump? No way.
> it is objectively helping to pay down the debt
Yeah, and if you take a singular grain of sand and put it in a bucket you’ve technically contributed to removing a beach.
> Well this is a failure of the courts trying to return the money to the greedy corporations
Why? The tariffs are literally paid by the corporations, there is a receipt. If the tariffs are ruled illegal, they should absolutely be refunded.
Oh, but actually there’s pass through and consumers paid it? Sure, good luck making that individual court case considering it will depend on the sector, the specific firm, the specific item, the specific time, etc. Maybe that highlights the fact that implementing illegal unilateral tariffs was a shitty fucking idea in the first place?#
Edit: They blocked me, lmfao. Always a sign of a good argument.
I'm happy to pay taxes, for the record, provided they're well designed and help the country. Tariffs do neither. Therefore, they're a shitty idea. I notice you can't be bothered to actually engage with the substance, which seems typical of Trump supporters. Oh well, they never send their best.
Substantial-Elk4531 | 3 hours ago
Lots of cope to say you don't want to pay your fair share. That's really an unpatriotic sentiment, I'm sorry to say. You should be proud to pay taxes to support our government IF you use the roads, the firefighter services, the hospitals, the schools, etc.
Lemp_Triscuit11 | 5 hours ago
> "I think they'll buy that, honey"
> "I asked you for a divorce a month ago."
Substantial-Elk4531 | 3 hours ago
> "Haha, I made up an imaginary scenario about this guy on the internet! That'll show him!"
> "Honey, will you please move out of the way? Chad wants more room on the bed for our... activities."
TraderJulz | 4 hours ago
So why not just raise corporate tax and personal tax then? Tariffs are just stupid all the way around
Substantial-Elk4531 | 3 hours ago
The President should raise all taxes, because we should all be paying our fair share. Tariffs are just one area where taxes can be raised. President Trump should also implement a national sales tax of 20%.
TraderJulz | 2 hours ago
I can agree with that. However instead of a 20% sales tax they can just cut spending in addition to raising tax imo
gizram84 | 8 hours ago
Inflation was even higher before the tarrifs though. Just look at 2021-2024.
Posts like these are so petty, and reek of hyper partisan political agenda embedded in our institutions. This is part of the reason why there's no trust left. Everyone is a liar.
But don't let reality get in the way of a good circle jerk.
coolopinionlmao | 8 hours ago
Do you regret your vote yet?
gizram84 | 8 hours ago
Not even a little. I've seen what the democrats have to offer, and it's nothing but more institutional theft, and redistribution of wealth.
OrangeJr36 | 7 hours ago
So, you should deeply regret your vote. That's all the Trump Administration offers.
The current administration has more in common with the Peronists and Chavistas than capitalists.
Lemp_Triscuit11 | 6 hours ago
You can't make him smart and you can't make him a good person
gizram84 | 7 hours ago
The current administration offered significant tax cuts and a favorable supreme court that has already delivered on many fronts.
Very pleased with that.
OrangeJr36 | 7 hours ago
Unfunded tax cuts are robbing Peter to pay Paul, something that conservatives are supposed to be against. Especially considering they are already tossed on top of an already unfunded tax cut from 2017.
Demanding free money and refusing to pay it back is all very socialist, especially from the party that keeps saying "you took out a loan, pay it back."
gizram84 | 7 hours ago
Tax cuts are the polar opposite of "robbing" anyone. It's literally less "robbing", and just peacefully allowing people to keep their own money that they've legitimately earned.
RashmaDu | 6 hours ago
> just peacefully allowing people to keep their own money that they've legitimately earned.
You mean like all the money Trump and his cronies have stolen from the American people by insider betting on tariffs, incredible levels of corruption for access to the president? Those sorts of legitimate earnings?
TraderJulz | 4 hours ago
You are just completely clueless aren't you? It's amazing how you think you are making a good point
bearbrannan | 7 hours ago
if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is, because I've seen more institutional theft and redistribution of wealth in the last two years then I have ever seen in my entire life...
Cute-Illustrator-862 | 6 hours ago
People who talk like this always makes minimum wage and/or unemployed.
RashmaDu | 6 hours ago
> Inflation was even higher before the tarrifs though. Just look at 2021-2024.
Okay... And it would have been lower absent the tariffs. So the tariffs increased inflation. Causal inference 101.
They're not sending their best
Neither_Strategy_252 | 6 hours ago
The inflation rate was back down below pre-COVID before Trump took office... So, that's a lie.
gizram84 | 6 hours ago
Nothing I said was a lie, and I didn't specifically blame any one person.
Unlike you, I'm capable of seeing through partisan nonsense and acknowledge that both parties have greatly embraced highly inflationary policies.
Neither_Strategy_252 | 6 hours ago
> Nothing I said was a lie
The inflation rate went up after tariffs. So, a lie or just misinformation.