2.8% doesn’t seem that crazy to me? Don’t we target like 2-2.5?
The more significant concern it seems to me is the rate of increase. Nearly a full percentage point in a month seems like a lot, but I'm no expert.
It's concerning. It's hard to say much more than that yet.
And then headline figure PPI was even higher at 0.9% for the month, 3.3% year.
So the real number would be 1.006^12=7.44%
And over 7% inflation is a bit more than 'pretty high' that's getting really scary if there's no clear outside reason for it
The public was so incensed that they threw out the government.
I don't believe it had anything to do with the price of eggs, either. That was presented as the primary reason, and it's so clearly wrong that it makes me suspicious.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
As an environmentalist, I essentially have no party, and so while I hate Donald Trump, I understand exactly why he was voted into office.
Yes, one is worse than the other. But in terms of real environmental policy, they are functionally the same.
The state of California passed the 2/3rds powered by renewables mark https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/07/14/in-historic-first-californ...
The Republicans are looking at bringing back coal mining. You’re just completely incorrect in your classification of both parties being as bad on the environment unless your bucket is so broad as to be meaningless for use in comparing two organizations
When multiple independent research groups show that the impact of implementing these policies show significant reduction in projected greenhouse gas emissions and rolling them back shows the opposite effect, how do you make the claim that they are "functionally the same"? And I don't even count the soft power - one side consistently claims that climate change is a hoax and the other side consistently takes it seriously.
I don't understand this at all. I could get behind an "enlightened centrist" position when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East. But environmental policy?
How is our charging infrastructure compared to say Europe's?
Considering we've had the technology for almost 30 years now, why isn't practically every consumer vehicle a phev?
I'm not going to believe any projected carbon emissions. I'm going to believe real carbon emissions that get measured. Hey, guess what? They are still going up.
I get that they were solar subsidies, but it's my strong opinion that there should have been unrefusable subsidies for home solar. I get so sick of the utility people complaining about how hard it's going to be to adapt the grid to alternative energy. Yet in the same time they bad mouth home solar which basically alleviates grid load.
There still is no effective policy implementations on reducing sprawl, except that which simply resists building housing in general.
And while I generally think nuclear energy isn't really an effective solution for clean energy, it should still be aggressively researched, although I think they should be chasing lftrs like China is.
You can say a lot of these are simply politically infeasible. That speaks more to the nature of the Democrats being a corporatist party than anything. a lot of these policies, especially ones around alternative energy and transport electrification which would functionally drop the price of energy and transportation, a key driver to economic growth in the long term, should have been a strong sell overall to the business lobby in general.
I'm not going to disagree that the only place that you're going to get some environmental progress is the Democratic party.
My point is that progress is mostly for show.
> The producer price index increased 0.9% from a month earlier, the largest advance since consumer inflation peaked in June 2022, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report out Thursday
The fed argues that, If inflation expectations fall, interest rates would decline too. In turn, there would be less room to cut interest rates to boost employment during an economic downturn.
this economics explanation feels like gaslighting every time i hear the fed mention it. the reserve literally pushed negative rates and quantitative easing for so long that people came to expect prosperity as a feature of the economic framework of the nation, and now that we have rampant inflation that cannot be controlled by normal means (prime rate) the fed somehow wants us all to understand its our fault for enjoying affordable burger meat.
This is only the nominal price, I can’t find the inflation adjusted graph, but I assume it’s clear that if the nominal price now is the same as several other periods over 10 years ago, then the gas today is cheaper over inflation adjusted dollar
https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-cha...
Note 10 years ago is 2015. The period over 10 years ago is the period of extremely high prices under discussion(mid 2000s to 2014)
Part of those external forces involves consumers in a major way.
Being off by 40% is cause for alarm in almost any circumstance.