All due to exports collapse (scroll to the bottom):
https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow#Tab3
May still hold true, the 2s10s has recently deinverted, which is typically the last stage pre-recession.
https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow#Tab3
May still hold true, the 2s10s has recently deinverted, which is typically the last stage pre-recession.
Fakeass Christians don't understand that means undocumented folks, non-white folks, non-Christian folks, women, and folks of other sexual preferences and gender identities.
"That which you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, that you do unto me." --Jesus of Nazareth
"Love your neighbor as yourself." --Jesus of Nazareth
The thing about the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is that the person does have to at least be a Scotsman, if that's what they're calling themself.
Since Jesus was an observant Jew, who explicitly said that not a letter of the Mosaic Law would pass away, I don't think he would be support of sexual "preferences" and "gender identities". The Law pretty much placed everything except sex within marriage as out of bounds, and not only did Jesus uphold the Law, but he even upped the requirements from actions to unexpressed desires. For instance, the Law only required not committing the act of adultery, but Jesus said that even looking at someone lustfully was adultery. So I can't see Jesus being supportive, but rather saying "go and sin no more".
Actually, I think Jesus was rather opposed to people who had identities of any sort, since he called people to an identity in himself. He had the harshest words for the Pharisees, who had an identity of "holy". The prostitutes and tax collectors and other "sinners" that Jesus hung out with agreed that they were not keeping the Law and repented of it, but if you've got an identity (that is, it is what you define yourself by), by definition you aren't going to be repentant about it.
Love is the rule. The Great(est) Command(ment) of all.
And, Jesus, of course, manifested such love completely, so his saying, "go and sin no more" is love, but he wasn't throwing any stones (literally), only giving advice -- but very, very good and important advice, for sure. And he also did literally protect the adulterer from get stoned, and he was fulfilling the Law there, too.
What we do in our homes behind closed doors is our business and our business alone (unless we are harming another adult against their will (or harming a child), then we must carefully intercede as a society on behalf of the innocent).
Put more simply, we all have the free will to choose how to live according to our wishes, with those certain caveats and careful, compassionate discernment.
Absolutely, there are societal-level problems with sex outside of marriage, regardless of the genders of the people involved, but I'm pretty sure we are not authorized to intrude into someone's home life, except in extraordinary circumstances.
The Law's sole purpose is our happiness, and serves to guide us towards an ever more compassionate society. But societies also have the right to create rules for themselves, should their majority decide to set them into stone, so to speak. [Democracy is God's Will; the oppression of tyrrany is a form of evil.] I don't believe that intruding into someone's personal life outside of the public's view is ever in love's best interest.
Regardless, the rules for oneself are intrinsically on a different level and nature than those imposed by govt upon everyone, yet we must try to walk a very blurry line and make a dilligent effort to incorporate the Great(est) Command(ment) into our societies' laws and enforcement -- or failure, misery, and strife will be the result.
I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable punishing someone for what they do in the privacy of their own home, but I can't in any way claim that to be authoritative, it's just my sense of loving others and wanting them to be happy with the choices they make. My counsel would be to keep things simple and not let the vice of greed/lust dominate one destructively, for both their and society's well-being and happiness.
> He had the harshest words for the Pharisees, who had an identity of "holy"
Phuck the Pharisees, those worthless fools. They have sold their souls for a small price. They get all the reward they're going to get from their hypcritical proclamations. Their "identity of holiness" is an utter lie and is not worth a jot.
> if you've got an identity (that is, it is what you define yourself by), by definition you aren't going to be repentant about it
Well, everyone's stubborn until they're not. Everyone acts out of vice until they choose to learn how to be virtuous. Patience is the last perfected virtue (and few reach that lofty peak), and is required to be "pure in heart" as stated in that one Beatitude.
Thanks for your well-considered, thoughtful, and though-provoking response. I don't have all the answers on this very thorny problem here in 2025. I hope my reply makes sense, though it is surely the first time I've put serious thought into or words together on this topic in this level of detail/amount of rambling :-)
Peace be with you. Thank you for this conversation. I am at your service.
This can easily be explained by wide application of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion in the bibles.
Let’s be honest, both parties are doing these dances of hypocrisy. Stay-the-course Dems defending Biden and continuing to demonise both wealth and populism aren’t much better. It’s not as bad, blatant or personalised. But it’s there.
The point is we have strong rhetoric around both. That is internally inconsistent.
> The bully lie is different. It doesn't try to convince you. It doesn't present evidence. It just tells you to pick a side. So when the president said that diversity programs caused the plane crash over the Potomac, when he called the president of Ukraine a dictator without elections, he didn't lay out a set of facts to make his case. He wasn't interested in rebuttal.
> When he does this kind of thing, Masha writes, he's "asserting control over reality itself" and splitting the country into those who agree to live in his reality and those who resist and become his enemies by insisting on facts.
I think institutional trust is too low, the media cycle moves too fast and people are too divided for facts to matter much in this environment.
This was also 'on display' in Trump 1.0 with the claim of "the largest crowds ever" for his first inauguration—which they weren't:
* https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38707722
* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/06/donald-trump-i...
* https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/the-facts-on-crowd-size/
A bunch of comments then about it being a 'loyalty test' if you were willing to repeat the line.
except for those who happens to be that "someone" who got shot and immediately stops cheering then while getting very confused and sorry for themselves.
Watch the interviews with the Trump voters who got recently laid off by Trump & Douche, err... Doge.
Have a link to anything quick?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/27/fired-fed...
These anecdotes however are few and far between. With a federal worker there's pretty obviously "nowhere to hide the bodies" - Trump came in, fired a bunch of federal workers. If you were a fired federal worker, it's impossible to read that any other way.
With something less direct, like losing your job during a recession? There's still plausible deniability that it's Biden's fault, because headlines like "Economists suggest <thing Trump did> might have triggered a recession" is too abstract and far removed from their own lived experience.
It was. Manchin was right. The MMT gang overstimulated the economy in ‘21 and then didn’t pass deflationary tax increases or spending cuts once the problem reared its head.
Instead those countries had higher inflation.
Germany massively stimulated to the tune of 15% (fiscal) and 25% (guarantees) of GDP [1].
[1] https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Fiscal-Policie...
15 and 25% versus 25% and under 3% strike me as in the same ballpark.
> Germany kept their deficit under 3%
Now. Not in the pandemic [1].
[1] https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GGXCNL_NGDP@WEO/DEU
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/10/09/inflatio...
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/federal-spendi...
https://globalmarkets.statestreet.com/research/portal/insigh...
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/covid-19-inflation-was-a-...
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/on-inflation-its-the-mono...
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/corporate-profits-drive-6...
Totally. But if prices were up under 18% (3.5%/y) over the last five years instead of 37% (6.6%) [1], I don’t think we’d have Trump.
Look no further than every interview with a regretful Trump voter: "I didn't think I'd lose my job." "I didn't they they would deport my family member." This is no different than "The only moral abortion is my abortion." Unless they are personally impacted by the policy, they vote their harmful belief system.
> “He’s not hurting the people he needs to be”: a Trump voter says the quiet part out loud
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/tr...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/11/there-are-a-...
Agree for the Rust Belt not for swing voters who didn’t vote Trump in ‘16 and ‘20.
The history of inflation and electorates is my only evidence, this time may have been different, but I’d need to see something beyond anecdotes to conclude that when voters said the economy was their issue [1] they were lying.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/09/09/issues-and-t...
I'll find more for the next convo on the topic.
I suppose a counterpart bias to conspiratorial thinking is taking as faith the wisdom of crowds. Perhaps this election was mass delusion and an argument for electoral restraint (which I’m sympathetic to).
But even if I concede that overstimulus didn’t cause Trump, I think it’s fair to say it did cause voters to blame Biden for inflation.
Eventually voters want cash in their pockets and if they don't have it, they get angry with whoever is at the top.
>Note: The Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimate is a model-based projection not subject to judgmental adjustments. It is not an official forecast of the Atlanta Fed, its president, the Federal Reserve System, or the Federal Open Market Committee.
Actually, it says that in the first sentence of the second paragraph on OP's link too:
>GDPNow is not an official forecast of the Atlanta Fed.
GDPNow is a forecast.
And it's a forecast coming from the Atlanta Fed.
The fact it's not "official" means what exactly?
It means no humans in the loop. GDPNow is a tracking model designed for reading by experts.
In this case, the context is the ISM Manufacturing report recorded a surge of imports while corresponding inventory numbers are still coming in. Once they do, the model will rebalance.
To the extent the model is saying something, it’s that we need to watch inventories, particularly in construction.
Perhaps worth noting that Harvey's original paper was about 3-month and 10-year Treasuries, but 2-year is now used by some folks:
> To determine whether the yield curve is inverted, it is a common practice to compare the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond to either a 2-year Treasury note or a 3-month Treasury bill. If the 10-year yield is less than the 2-year or 3-month yield, the curve is inverted.[4][5][6][7]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_yield_curve
* https://people.duke.edu/~charvey/Term_structure/Harvey.pdf
> Harvey: Flat or inverted yield curves are historically associated with slow economic growth or recessions. I did notice that the yield curve inversion of the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month Treasury bill yield curve preceded all four recession since the 1960s. My dissertation committee at the University of Chicago was concerned that this might be a fluke given there were only four recessions. Frankly, I was nervous too because it is well known in science that strong findings become weaker after publication -- or sometimes vanish. However, in my case, this did not happen. Yield curve inversions preceded each of the next three recessions, including the important global financial crisis.
* https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/yield-curve-inversion-explain...
For those of us not in the know, could you give some more detail? What is 2s10s, what does it mean that it's deinverted, and why is that typically the last stage pre-recession?
So the difference in 2 year vs 10 year treasury bonds. If they are not trending in the same direction, the near term thinking is that the market is doing poorly.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y
Normally long-term bonds have higher interest rates than short-term bonds, because investors need to be paid more money to take the risk of locking up their money for longer time period. The exception is that when you expect interest rates to fall in the near future, it makes more sense to hold long-term bonds, because you lock in today's rates for a longer time period, while the investor that picks up 2 year bonds will have to roll them over at whatever they can get in two years. That bids up the price of long-term bonds, which makes the effective interest rate fall. This situation is called an "inverted" yield curve, because it is the opposite of the normal situation.
A "deinverted" yield curve is when you have an inverted yield curve but the difference suddenly goes positive again. That's the situation we're in now, as you can see from the graph. And usually you get into that situation because the scenario investors feared actually happens: short-term interest rates drop, partially as a response from the Fed to inject more money into the economy and stave off the recession, and partially because stocks become very risky in a recession and so investors flee them and go to short-term bonds instead to preserve capital.
And using the 3-month instead, as was done in Campbell Harvey's original paper:
https://ig.ft.com/the-yield-curve-explained/
And here is just the chart (which is the top result for "2s10s"), click on Max:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y
BTW, there is something very similar in commodities markets - contango and backwardation. Contango comes from some old British word that's similar to "continuation" and describes the usual situation for non-perishable goods where if you, a buyer, want to delay the delivery of goods then I, the supplier, will charge you a little extra for using my storage space. This little extra is called "continuation fee", or "contango". It shows up in modern commodity markets like the CME on price vs time-of-delivery curves. But sometimes the markets are in backwardation and earlier deliveries are more expensive than late deliveries.
PS. "2s" meaning "the twos", meaning "two-year Treasury bonds"; it's a common abbreviation.
But to be a little pedantic, the 2-year and 10-year issues are Treasury Notes, not bonds. I don’t know why they use 3 different terms depending on the duration, but they do.