Nope, last number is well within the limits set by the variation of the previous numbers. Depending on how sensitive you feel like being to false alarms, I wouldn't even say there's been a clear trend this year.
If you detrend it by successive differences we see that the slope is very close to zero compared to variation: https://static.loop54.com/XmR.html?baseline=0.4,0.6,-0.2,0.3...
However, the last number is close to a control limit, so if this continues next month we may have a signal!
However -- the technique might work anyway: the signal would be smaller, but so should the variation. Yes, one decreases as the square root and the other does not, but over just 12 months that might not make a big difference.
Only backtesting or a more thorough theoretical investigation can tell!
Edit: actually it doesn't have to be very thorough at all, it's a factor of 3. Probably important!
That said, as I've admitted in a more constructive parent comment, this tool was misapplied here due to my misreading of the GGP.
[1] Which likely ends up being a proxy for oil, but as a farmer I watch food commodities much more closely.
Next year will even be worse, we are using a fuel reserves now and fertilizer will still be an issue (unless peace is made with Russia). I’m expecting a significant increase in the next 2-3 months then again in 15-16 months.
Certainly, it is possible for inflation to slow and then ramp up again. It is not a static value by any stretch. But it remains that current indicators suggest that it is slowing. Not only in the actual inflation metrics but other also in other indicators.
Russia can end this tomorrow, by withdrawing from Ukraine.
You probably didn’t mean to imply anything, but it’s a sensitive topic, semantics matter.
This is false. It requires a willingness from Russia to stop invading Ukraine. What you're writing here is appeasement, and it it's a very bad idea both generally and specifically with regards to global economic stability.
Yes, Russia can attempt appeasement by leaving Ukraine, but we have to accept that gesture for peace to be made. There is no reason why we have to lift sanctions just because they tried to appease us. We probably would for a number of reasons, but we don't have to make peace if we don't want to.
In your mind, how justified is Russia in this conflict?
Because nobody here is talking about lifting the sanctions to please Russia, Russia would have to stop invading Ukraine, which is explicitly not "Appeasement"[0] considering they're the aggressor and the ones creating the conflict.
The only way you could see Russia as not the aggressor here is if you think Russia is justified in its invasion of Ukraine...
Right, as the ball is in Russia's court to appease the West to see them lifted, and so what political, material, or territorial concessions are being made by the West to avoid conflict? In reality, Russia is the one who must concede on Ukrainian territory for sanctions to be lifted.
> The only way you could see Russia as not the aggressor here is if you think Russia is justified in its invasion of Ukraine...
This is a logical fallacy. One's feelings towards the matter have absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand.
Thus, to solve the problem of what would be "apeasement", you need to resolve the question or which of the parties involved (Russia, Ukraine, "the West", the US, etc.) should be considered "aggressive".
And that's why this question, which i think is an attempt to understand who the aggressive party/parties are in your opinion, is not a change of subject
Appeasement is defined as policy that avoids conflict. The conflict in Ukraine hasn't been avoided and remains ongoing, so Russia does not fit no matter how you slice it. Nor does the West, to be fair. Conflict hasn't been avoided full stop.
If, for argument's sake, conflict has been avoided, it is important to understand what concessions have been made to Russia, if Russia is the aggressor. It matters not who the aggressor is if nobody is performing appeasement in the first place. I am not aware of the West providing any concessions to keep Russia happy as it pertains to this. Instead, sanctions has been imposed against their wishes.
Russia pulling out and conceding Ukrainian territory back to Ukraine to keep the West happy is how sanctions will be lifted. The West is not the aggressor in the war, but could be considered an aggressor when it comes to sanctions. They were very much intended to be putative. If appeasement is relevant (which is debatable), that is where it fits given the subject of what it will take to see sanctions lifted.
One's feelings about whether or not Russia is justified is irrelevant and a change in subject. Furthermore, use of language needs to be introspective of broad interpretation, so even if personal opinion would serve to skew in some fashion, it does not hold relevant to understanding language use in a community.
You're simply using a different definition from them
> Furthermore, use of language needs to be introspective of broad interpretation, so even if personal opinion would serve to skew in some fashion, it does not hold relevant to understanding language use in a community.
As a matter of fact, languages I know (including English) are not built like that.
The closest "language" i know from this property is mathematics.
International freight, also. Ningbo-LA ran from $3,500 pre-Covid up to $22k last August/September, now down to around $9k.
Overall, still up a lot compared to 2019, but substantial drops in many commodities compared to peak.
MoM is a cleaner way to look at things in volatile times like these.
I realized when monitoring COVID data that rolling numbers like this can be heavily impacted by the number that’s rolling off.
Take, for example, a 7-day COVID case count of 100. The next day this drops to 90. That’s great, right?
Well, if yesterday’s 7-day values were all 100, and today’s are 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 30, then yes, that’s great!
But if yesterday’s 7-day values were 700, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, and today’s are 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 630, then that’s potentially very bad (depending on other context).
This is obviously a hyperbole, but it shows that looking at and comparing rolling numbers can be tricky, and you need to look at other context to get the full picture.
This isn't great.. And on top of it look at the number 1 comment here.. People are making concerted efforts to reign-in spending .. Which is excellent financial discipline.. but it's potentially very dangerous for this type of economy if everyone stops spending into this 'easing'
And if you think about it, reducing "inflation" to a single number will always disguise some things - gas prices adjust multiple times a day if necessary but things like leases only get renegotiated once a year or even longer.
Maybe the prices stay low, but with Europe warning of fuel shortages this winter, I can't see that happening.
I believe the plan in case of shortage is to reduce the amount of natural gas flowing to power plants, and to make do with whatever alternatives for electricity are readily available (which is probably coal, although maybe nuclear decommissioning will be staved off).
But oil (&coal) may be bought to generate electricity (to replace gas, not for heating but for electricity production. Some European countries such as Germany are heavily reliant on gas for electricity production), and that may still drive petrol up
Much of this period, the spot price of oil was high, but oil for delivery 6-12 months out was much less expensive. The SPR could sell into the spot market but buy oil for delivery 6-12 months out. This actually could mean a much more sustained drop.
If you think it is a decrease in the real gross domestic production and purchasing power of Americans, we are clearly already there.
If you think it is the slope employment for some reason, then no.
[0]: https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequen...
In the same vein, more people working, but making less, and producing less is not a growing economy
An online dictionary defines it as "the activity of producing, buying, or selling products or services".
For most people growth means that the economy is getting better and recession means that the economy is getting worse.
Maybe you are right and the word recession has become too politicized to use to describe the different scenarios.
That said, if you were in a plane losing altitude and other people thought it was in fact gaining altitude, this would be a cause for debate
That's a fine shorthand, but the reason the standard data and interpretation of it matters is that otherwise all you have is what people feel about the economy, which is not very useful information.
There are detailed answers to all these questions if you care to study it.
The main moderating factor on that is that one month doesn't necessarily mean a sustained trend.
This is a single number in a noisy series of measurements. If it repeats 1-2 more times, we're on firmer ground.
So really the EV market is still insignificant and gaz consumption for the average household has gone up, not down.
Historical data shows that overall gas consumption is more strongly linked to the frequency of highway travel than to recent changes in car purchases. See:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/188448/total-us-domestic...
There's a drop during the Great Recession, a rapid rise during the recovery, and a roughly flat line during the Trump administration until another crater during the COVID pandemic.
Infrastructure is not there and is not going to be there for EVs for a long time.
Its not only gas stations but also power plants, transit cables, personel, supply chains, technology, laws and other.
If we make good investments it will take around 50 years in some developed EU countries to reach appropriate infrastructure levels. In less developed countries probably 100+years.
But if every parking space just gets 1KW of solar panel ~$500 and sun shines for 10 hours a day, you probably have enough power for the 30 miles of daily commute. A car sits idle for 90% of the day. We can use this time to charge it.
It's not the long road trip use case but I think will put a big dent in the resources needed to migrate to EV.
I’m not gonna spend 10 hours in an office and definitely not from sunrise to sunset. Also, 10 hours of sunshine in a day is a rarity in most of the US, especially during the winter.
Not sure I'm feeling as pessimistic on infrastructure. A bunch of the infrastructure for EVs already exists and is wired to every house. Even if we converted 100% of all newly sold vehicles to EV today, the grid build-out required wouldn't be any harder than what we've done in the past.
No reason to go further than that at this point in time. Even if we do go beyond to create a doomsday scenario for EVs, it will be worked out because few of these things are unanswerable open questions. If this were hinging on some technological homerun like figuring out fission or the Alcubierre drive then I would feel differently about it.
We have troubles generating enough power to not force blackouts in EU and we talk about introducing hundreds of millions of EVs / to every household.
Currently it all works only because they are a novelity.
EVs are certainly not only a novelty in the EU right now.
But yeah, I wouldn’t count on short grocery store stops to charge my car.
But more to the point, how many people have a regular commute, only have street parking at home, and ALSO couldn't be expected to have their employer provide charging at work? Are they doing on-street parking at work as well?
I know a lot of folks in the city who own a car but use it for errands and trips but not commuting. They're the people best served by slower charging at grocery stores, movie theaters, etc. 20 miles isn't a lot but if you're topping up every-time you use the car anyways it adds up or at the least means you only need to use the fast charger once every few months at the most.
The need will become obvious to them once market share approaches 20%.
In my buildings parking garage there are 150 cars, where probably a good 30-40% of cars are BEVs. We're pulling a maximum of 32kW, or 400V/80A. I have yet to find my car not fully charged in the morning. It's a load balanced system, so usually I get full effect of 11kW when charging.
That would be twice as long as it took the US to electrify 90% of farm houses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act
>Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn was a major proponent of the REA, which he helped pass in 1936 as Chairman of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. Rayburn stated in 1959 that ninety percent of farm homes in the U.S. were electrified, compared to three percent in the early 1930s.
Furthermore, electrifying gas stations along major highways will obviously be much easier than electrifying farms scattered around everywhere.
How many charging points do we need now vs # those farms ?
What was the quality of cable lanes used ?
Did we consider off-grid then ?
Whats the estimated cost in comparison to now ?
You make it sound simple, but its not. Making that comparison is like comparing apples to oranges.
There are ~150,000 gas stations in the United States. There are 2 million farms, and that's after significant consolidation of agriculture during the Green Revolution.
>You make it sound simple, but its not.
You are simply posting 'questions' without bothering to do the least bit of research. Looking up those numbers took less than a minute. Climate change discussions benefit from informed skepticism, not intransigent fatalism.
For me thats “a lot more” than 2 mil farms.
Its realism. Consider a situation when 50 cars have to park at the station to charge back to full. The station is out of service for the next 10h… This is a pretty common situation on highway.
We would need hundreds of those charging spots often with hotels.
Im more excited for Hydrogen cars than EVs. Its a lot cleaner and future proof solution.
(1) HOME CHARGING. In sparser areas where people live in houses with garages, duplexes, and even to some degree rowhouses, it's easy to run an extension cord and get a full charge nightly.
(2) STORE PARKING LOT CHARGING. In denser places where people live predominantly in apartment buildings and perhaps some rowhouses, there is enough density to have rapid chargers in store parking lots. You drive to the grocery store, park for half an hour while you shop, and you have enough charge for the rest of the week. There is also enough density that daily milage is much less so you can get away with charging once or twice a week instead of daily.
(3) OTHER TRANSPORT CHOICES REDUCE RANGE ANXIETY. Also at least in the USA TONS of households have multiple cars -- especially in sparser areas that are more car dependent and have plentiful parking. This creates an easy in for the plugin EV -- if one of your (typically two) cars is still ICE or hybrid, you don't have to worry about range anyway (while still putting most miles on the EV). Conversely, in denser areas (USA or EU) it is common to own zero cars or one car that isn't even used every day because public transit covers some of the transport needs. In either case, range anxiety becomes not much of a problem because the EV isn't your sole option for getting around (but, at 250mi range, range anxiety is kind of obsolete anyway)
So once again, whether you're in a sparse or dense area, there are dynamics that make it easy for many people to get started with an EV. Does it work for 100% of people, today? No. But that's how change works. Once a lot more people, starting with those who can easily do so, get EVs, it becomes more normalized, and there's more infrastructure, and the cycle continues.
Good plugin EVs like the Bolt or Leaf with 200+ mi of range are now in the $20-$29k range. It's starting to become pretty practical. They're not competitive with getting the cheapest camry shitbox you can find on craigslist and running it into the ground, but they're competitive with a lot of ordinary cars ordinary people buy.
https://electrek.co/2022/07/29/which-electric-vehicles-still...
The new car shortages are real but I don't see how they speak to long term EV viability which is what was being discussed. ICE cars are just as affected, and it's bound to get better eventually.
EDIT: It appears you have lied. The price you quote is for the fancier model of Leaf, but the base model is available for $27,800 according to Nissan's own website. I got here by searching "nissan leaf" on google. Not sure why you didn't do this. https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/electric-cars/leaf.html
This is still quibbling about details though. EVs are clearly here to stay.
At least some of the 2022 numbers are only an artifact of being compared to that low baseline. And the apparent drop in the second half of 2022 is an artifact of comparing to the second half of 2021 when demand got mostly back to normal.
I highly recommend just looking at energy since it's an input cost into nearly everything