I have seen this comparison to the 1970s several times already and aside from the cherry picked data points of similar high inflation rates and energy shortage, nothing else is similar today.

In the 1970s we still had a manufacturing base and a wealthy middle class. Back in the 1970s we were not saddled with the trillions of dollars of debt that we now have. Back in the 1970s we still had politicians who were willing to work together to solve problems. And back in the 1970s we did not have such silliness as "climate change" restricting the actions that can be made to improve conditions.

So no, a comparison to the 1970s is not at all going to be accurate. We are in unchartered waters here. Some of the usual tools to combat inflation and recession are not available and others cannot be used because it violates "climate change". Well when the actions taken to fight climate change result in conditions worse than just adapting to climate change, one has to wonder if it is indeed worth it?

All we can do, is advertise more in the local market. Maybe cut a schedule train that isn't well patronized, like a late afternoon run. And postpone some restoration work.

You need to learn how to post without argumentum ad hominem

Verbal emesis has all of the malodorous character as the physical kind.

I am amused that assessing the current economic conditions immediate causes partisan reaction.

Here's the reality. We have 30T in debt. We are conducting an experiment in fiscal profligacy which is premised on the dollar remaining accepted as the world's reserve currency. The rest of the world is seeking alternatives to a continually debased currency.

But its not really party politics when in reality both sides just got together to give $40B to "Ukraine". It won't erase the Russian invasion or rebuild the damage. Yet all the right and left blowhards said "aye" and now will tell us it's for our "security". This after we just left Afghanistan after 20 years with nothing to show for it, except the dead and maimed.

Why should I trust them?

We have elected officials talking about being at war-despite the absence of the required Congressional declaration. They are recklessly provoking a nuclear power.

Pick any domestic pet cause. What would happen with a $40B infusion?

How about this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ator-warns

Two years ago, people were waiting to get their catnip stimmy checks, sometimes months. No wait for this spending though.

The older I get, the more I admire the Italians' treatment of Mussolini.

Post Script: "This" is not an industry, it's an advocation.

The government and the media have done a great job of confusing and concealing the full extent of inflation. Each month they show the chart of the last 40 years, drawn as a continuous presentation, without ever mentioning that the "market basket" of goods has been changed several times in that period to sequentially understate the inflation rate. Several economists who look at the numbers using both the newer and the pre-1980 measurement methods have posted that the actual current inflation is closer to 20% year-over-year, that is higher than the 1970s. That is definitely how it looks on the shelves of the stores around here.

Four sequential years of 20% inflation would make prices double, because the numbers compound like interest as the years pass.

PC

From my understanding that $40B actually is staying domestic. We gave $40B of weapons from our stock pile (which were about to expire anyway) and then used the monies to replace them. So in the end Ukraine gets needed weapons, we get newer weapons, and the monies go to your favorite domestic weapons manufacturer. That's why this actually passed.

I'm of the opinion that some of these high prices attributed to "inflation" is nothing more than opportunistic price gouging. Fuel prices are high, no doubt, but we're not the only ones who use it. The Keystone pipeline construction being halted by Biden has nothing to do with it. That oil wasn't destined for US consumption, anyway. Putins invasion of Ukraine caused all this.
I see plenty of great big, brand new dog food haulers being driven around town. I have no idea of the price of a brand new Chevy truck, but I'm guessing it's north of $75,000. Drive out of the city limits, on the paved roads.. and there are no shortage of brand new houses popping up. Most are set back off the road out in what used to be a farmers field.
Farm ground is snapped up as soon as it hits the market. Most rural land is going for $3,000+ an acre around here. One farmer I know just bought an entire section.. that's 600 acres... $3,500 an acre. People who want to build a house out on the outskirts of town pay WAY more than that.
A 1 liter plastic bottle of Pepsi is $2.89 at the convenience stores here. You can buy a 2 liter for $1.09 at the grocery store. That's price gouging.
So, there is still money out there, don't let the naysayers misinform you.


Though some may not want to admit it, one party has made everything political. Nothing can get through congress. The congresscritters on one side are "afraid" of their political voting base, and as such refuse to do one single thing that could be considered as "giving in" to the Liberals, thus bringing down the wrath of "you-know-who" and him inciting violence against you.

They are even voting AGAINST giving billions to Ukraine. Helping Ukraine is in the Worlds best interest. Putin is corrupt, and everything and everyone he is in contact with is corrupt... despite what Tucker Carlson says in defense of him.

Can you imagine a world where Walter Cronkite would utter the phrase "Why should I hate Putin... he never called me a racist?"

One particular political figure is responsible for the current state of civil dysfunction in the USA, and that person seems to have taken a page out of the Putin playbook.

Was discussing the Buffalo race massacre the other day at work... one of the guys said "I wish they would stop making everything political..."

I was aghast. "Not make it political"?

How do you discuss a racially motivated massacre without acknowledging it's perpetrator was driven by politically charged dialogue being expounded by the outspoken mouthpiece of one particular political party?
These two were all for killing the kid who did it, but the reason he killed those black people was of no interest to them. They were also thinking that "they shouldn't let people like that have guns". I said "well, maybe if he'd have taken a gun safety course it wouldn't have happened?" (One of them got my sarcasm) That phrase is the usual retort from conservative talking heads when a gun nut goes on a rampage and they have to defend the 2nd amendment.

I'm not sure either one of these guys vote... can't be bothered.. but they've sure fallen under the spell of "you can't trust the media" and "all politicians are corrupt".

Who is the politician that first uttered that phrase ahead of the 2016 and 2020 elections?

I just don't get it.

Bury your head in the sand if you must, but it IS all political.