Are we headed for a world wide meltdown?

Thanks for the informative and thought provoking pieces by Dudley and Cullen Roche in your posts on page 6 of this thread.

In particular, I'd never thought about the following, which makes a lot of sense, and may help explain in part why many economists believe the Fed will be able get away with a peak Fed Funds rate around 2.5% to 3% this time around:

In contrast to many other countries, the U.S. economy doesn’t respond directly to the level of short-term interest rates. Most home borrowers aren’t affected, because they have long-term, fixed-rate mortgages. And, again in contrast to many other countries, many U.S. households do hold a significant amount of their wealth in equities. As a result, they’re sensitive to financial conditions: Equity prices influence how wealthy they feel, and how willing they are to spend rather than save.

I also liked the punch bowl comment, although I'm not sure I agree with it. One of the previous chairmen of the Federal Reserve said something like "It's the Fed's job to take away the punch bowl from the party when people start getting lit." Well, it seems to me like this Fed has been more inclined to spike the bowl with Everclear when the party really gets going.

I didn't really understand the italicized part below. At some point presumably inflation will be under control and the Fed will back off. Why does the expectation that will happen make it more difficult for the Fed to jack up rates now?

The S&P 500 index is down only about 4% from its peak in early January, and still up a lot from its pre-pandemic level. Similarly, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note stands at 2.5%, up just 0.75 percentage point from a year ago and still way below the inflation rate. This is happening because market participants expect higher short-term rates to undermine economic growth and force the Fed to reverse course in 2024 and 2025 — but these very expectations are preventing the tightening of financial conditions that would make such an outcome more likely.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal this weekend, a news piece, not an editorial, that said 3 million Americans had dropped out of the labor force as a result of COVID. You have people who just don't want to work anymore, some because they're afraid they'll get COVID, and others because of other reasons. I wonder what kind of an effect that will have? I'd think it would increase the probability of some kind of wage/price spiral, if there's a big shortage of labor as a result. Originally Posted by Tiny

Regarding your observation/question concerning the Italicized segment, here's my take.

Market participants may very soon increasingly start to believe that the specter of short-term interest rate hikes will begin suppressing prospects for economic growth over the next year or two, if not precipitate a full-blown recession outright. (I think it's more likely than not that a recession will begin soon, if indeed it hasn't already. Remember, there's a long history of majorities of polled economists opining that there's no recession on the horizon even as late as the point when we were already a couple of months into one.)

If such a brewing set of expectations births a new set of expectations that the Fed will pivot from concerns about inflation to fears of recession, the tightening cycle could end up being quickly reversed.

As I noted in a recent post, the Fed typically attempts to follow the "path of least embarrassment." Right now, that's fighting inflation. However, a turn to (relative) fiscal austerity (there aren't going to be any more gigantic covid relief or stimulus packages) will likely cause inflation to dissipate, and then the curtain will come down on any semblance of healthy demand-led growth. What does that mean? Hello, recession. (This is the fakest, shakiest economic "expansion" in modern history.)

Then the "path of least embarrassment" would be to cut rates again and possibly even resume bond-buying. (Thus the "drunk in the shower" metaphor in my earlier post!)

Concerning the labor force decline of about 3 million:

That's been much discussed by a number of people in recent forums. One key point is that after the pandemic set in, many people expecting to retire within the next four or five years decided just to check out a little earlier than previously planned. Although in some cases that might have been out of covid fear, in many instances it was just a case of "momentum" as people got used to staying home, and liked it -- especially if, as a result of extended covid-era unemployment benefits and stimulus checks, they had a bit more cash than they otherwise would have.

I suspect that that labor demand may be largely fulfilled during the coming months -- and although many in the workforce will see pay raises this year, there may not be an extended wage-price spiral like in the 1970s, for two reasons.

First, inflation expectations are not baked into expectations to nearly the extent that they were during the great inflation of that period.

Second, only a small fraction of the private section workforce is unionized compared with the '70s, so contracts do not generally include COLAs of any kind.

.

They are underrated. Foreplay is essential..

For me, anyway. You're a Fourplay guy. You walk in (at 4:00), stick your 4 inches in (you named yourself ''Tiny'' for a reason), and leave after cumming in four minutes.

You go home and play this album.. 12 Play.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ75oJEcGWA

To celebrate the 3 ladies you fucked that morning. 3 Fucks in 12 minutes. Good God I envy you. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

not a great example. R Kelly in jail and stayin' in jail for long time. how long of his decades long sentence will pass before he "goes greek"?

Criminal conviction (2021)

The federal trial began on August 18, 2021. After weeks of testimony and two days of deliberations, on September 27, 2021, the jury found Kelly guilty on nine counts including racketeering, sexual exploitation of a child, kidnapping, bribery, sex trafficking, and a violation of the Mann Act. The judge ordered that Kelly remain in custody pending sentencing, which was set for May 4, 2022.[237][30][238]


After the jury delivered their verdict, women's rights attorney Gloria Allred, who represented several victims, stated that Kelly was the worst sexual predator she had pursued in her 47-year career of practicing law.[239][240][241]


and speaking of fugitive flamingos


https://www.southernliving.com/cultu...nk-flyod-texas


Fugitive Flamingo on the Run From Kansas Zoo for 17 Years Pops up Again in Texas



live free Pink Floyd, live free!

The mighty Trump wage myth

https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/

From 2018 to 2019, the fastest growth continued at the top (4.5% at the 95th percentile), while median wages grew 1.0% over the year and wages at the bottom fell (-0.7% at the 10th percentile

Here are a couple of graphs showing historical prices of construction materials and houses. It looks like other than the period associated with the 2008/2009 recession they've mostly just gone up.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPUSI012011

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS Originally Posted by Tiny

I didn't get around to commenting on these graphs when they were first posted a few weeks ago.

However, I think you might notice something interesting if you compare them.

The first is a graph that simply shows the PPI for construction materials over time.

Suppose that you superimposed a simple CPI graph over the PPI graph for construction materials. I believe you would see that those input costs have risen at a rate more or less similar to that of the CPI (at least before the onset of the pandemic).

Now consider what you would see if you did the same with the median value chart. Totally different picture. Between 1972 and 2020, the median US home price rose more than tenfold!

Steadily and in some cases rapidly declining mortgage interest rates have made it possible for home buyers to qualify for a mortgage on a house that's a significantly higher multiple of household income than in prior years.

But what happens if rates even partially "normalize" and move even halfway to their 60-year average? Housing market affordability would tank (as it is now to some extent).

For anyone who wants to follow trends in mortgage rates, inventory levels, housing market affordability (and a lot of other things including vehicle sales, etc.), I highly recommend the excellent Calculated Risk Blog, updated every weekday by Bill McBride -- who has been compiling and reporting all this stuff for many years.

https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/

.

...https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/ . Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Great info and great site. But I don't cotton much to their cookie policy and the difficulty in Rejecting them all, so I gots to pass on it.

To your previous post and the notion of the boomers bailing from the labor market a bit early. I think there is a shit-ton (finance term) going on in regards to labor. You mentioned the unions, but I've lived through a few labor cycles in a couple industries. Where I'm going with this is:

A) the boomers were the largest mass/body in recent history
B) birth rates have been precipitously declining over the last decade and accelerating
C) technology is removing the need for a lot of lesser skilled workers
D) Un-to-semi skilled workers are streaming unabated across our nonexistent border
E) Our higher education is literally in the toilet and not producing what we actually need and when they actually do (ex: STEM) the jobs go to foreigners via multiple VISA programs
F) Yes! We are F'd in the labor pool!

I recon what this means is that using the old models of figuring the impact of labor in our economic forecasting just doesn't hold water to the way it has in the past. We got a crazy mixed up passel of pickles slam-jamming our labor force at the same time and our collective approach so far has to been to hit the Puree button on the blender.

Regarding your observation/question concerning the Italicized segment, here's my take.

Market participants may very soon increasingly start to believe that the specter of short-term interest rate hikes will begin suppressing prospects for economic growth over the next year or two, if not precipitate a full-blown recession outright. (I think it's more likely than not that a recession will begin soon, if indeed it hasn't already. Remember, there's a long history of majorities of polled economists opining that there's no recession on the horizon even as late as the point when we were already a couple of months into one.)

If such a brewing set of expectations births a new set of expectations that the Fed will pivot from concerns about inflation to fears of recession, the tightening cycle could end up being quickly reversed.

As I noted in a recent post, the Fed typically attempts to follow the "path of least embarrassment." Right now, that's fighting inflation. However, a turn to (relative) fiscal austerity (there aren't going to be any more gigantic covid relief or stimulus packages) will likely cause inflation to dissipate, and then the curtain will come down on any semblance of healthy demand-led growth. What does that mean? Hello, recession. (This is the fakest, shakiest economic "expansion" in modern history.)

Then the "path of least embarrassment" would be to cut rates again and possibly even resume bond-buying. (Thus the "drunk in the shower" metaphor in my earlier post!)

Concerning the labor force decline of about 3 million:

That's been much discussed by a number of people in recent forums. One key point is that after the pandemic set in, many people expecting to retire within the next four or five years decided just to check out a little earlier than previously planned. Although in some cases that might have been out of covid fear, in many instances it was just a case of "momentum" as people got used to staying home, and liked it -- especially if, as a result of extended covid-era unemployment benefits and stimulus checks, they had a bit more cash than they otherwise would have.

I suspect that that labor demand may be largely fulfilled during the coming months -- and although many in the workforce will see pay raises this year, there may not be an extended wage-price spiral like in the 1970s, for two reasons.

First, inflation expectations are not baked into expectations to nearly the extent that they were during the great inflation of that period.

Second, only a small fraction of the private section workforce is unionized compared with the '70s, so contracts do not generally include COLAs of any kind.

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

That all makes good sense. I may owe an apology to WTF for belittling his thoughts about Baby Boomers retiring and the effect of that on the labor force.

You once wrote that you like to buy shares when the market is depressed, like 2008/2009, and then hold them for the long term. I'm wondering, given your view on interest rate increases, over-reaction by the Fed, and a looming recession, whether you've taken any money off the table, by selling shares.

I hate holding onto cash with inflation running over 8% and short term interest rates still at very low levels, but maybe that's not a bad idea right now.

I didn't get around to commenting on these graphs when they were first posted a few weeks ago.

However, I think you might notice something interesting if you compare them.

The first is a graph that simply shows the PPI for construction materials over time.

Suppose that you superimposed a simple CPI graph over the PPI graph for construction materials. I believe you would see that those input costs have risen at a rate more or less similar to that of the CPI (at least before the onset of the pandemic).

Now consider what you would see if you did the same with the median value chart. Totally different picture. Between 1972 and 2020, the median US home price rose more than tenfold!

Steadily and in some cases rapidly declining mortgage interest rates have made it possible for home buyers to qualify for a mortgage on a house that's a significantly higher multiple of household income than in prior years.

But what happens if rates even partially "normalize" and move even halfway to their 60-year average? Housing market affordability would tank (as it is now to some extent).

For anyone who wants to follow trends in mortgage rates, inventory levels, housing market affordability (and a lot of other things including vehicle sales, etc.), I highly recommend the excellent Calculated Risk Blog, updated every weekday by Bill McBride -- who has been compiling and reporting all this stuff for many years.

https://www.calculatedriskblog.com/

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I calculated the ratios - the median home price is up 15.7X since 2Q 1972, while the CPI is "only" up 6.9X.

Here's another one, all-transactions house price index for California,

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CASTHPI

The index fell from 648 in 3Q2006 to 382 in 2Q2012. That's not adjusted for inflation. And this was during a period when the average 30 year fixed rate mortgage fell from 6.4% to 3.8%. As you noted, rates are going the other way now.

You once wrote that you like to buy shares when the market is depressed, like 2008/2009, and then hold them for the long term. I'm wondering, given your view on interest rate increases, over-reaction by the Fed, and a looming recession, whether you've taken any money off the table, by selling shares.

I hate holding onto cash with inflation running over 8% and short term interest rates still at very low levels, but maybe that's not a bad idea right now. Originally Posted by Tiny

As a deep-value contrarian investor, I like to buy after bear markets and recessions have whacked valuations enough to scare the hell out of most investors. Thus, in high and rising markets I like to raise cash, in readiness for the next bear market buying opportunities (whenever they may present themselves).

In the case of some non-dividend-paying tech stocks, I like to sell about 5% or more of my stake when the market becomes richly valued. From a tax standpoint, that is of course functionally equivalent to receiving dividends, since at 23.8%, the tax rate is the same either way.

And I don't worry a lot about "FOMO" or "TINA" -- because if I have cash, I have options!

.

As a deep-value contrarian investor, I like to buy after bear markets and recessions have whacked valuations enough to scare the hell out of most investors. Thus, in high and rising markets I like to raise cash, in readiness for the next bear market buying opportunities (whenever they may present themselves).

In the case of some non-dividend-paying tech stocks, I like to sell about 5% or more of my stake when the market becomes richly valued. From a tax standpoint, that is of course functionally equivalent to receiving dividends, since at 23.8%, the tax rate is the same either way.

And I don't worry a lot about "FOMO" or "TINA" -- because if I have cash, I have options!

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

It's too late to edit my previous post, but I meant to add these two thoughts:

First, I intended to say that in high and rising markets, I often sell 5% or so of my stake in non-dividend-paying companies each year, not just on a one-time basis.

Second, aside from that, I rarely sell anything unless I become concerned that a company's prospects may be on the decline. I like to plan to own over the very long term, and unless I become even more bearish than I am now, don't want to pay cap gains taxes and worry about continually deciding whether it's the right time to jump back in.

Instead, I just prefer to add to my position (or hunt for some other attractively priced opportunity) in the aftermath of a big bear market selloff.

.

Second, aside from that, I rarely sell anything unless I become concerned that a company's prospects may be on the decline. I like to plan to own over the very long term, and unless I become even more bearish than I am now, don't want to pay cap gains taxes and worry about continually deciding whether it's the right time to jump back in.

Instead, I just prefer to add to my position (or hunt for some other attractively priced opportunity) in the aftermath of a big bear market selloff.
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Your money, your decision, but... This is what you laid out.

For ease of discussion, let's say you had $100,000 in the Stock Market last November, as all-time highs were hit. You feel (correctly) that it is over-valued. Your discipline says sell 5%.. Great, now you have $95,000.

Today, 5 months later, your $95,000 is worth about $74,000, if your portfolio is reasonably allocated. You have the $5,000 ready to deploy.

Was a value drop of $21,000 worth saving (deferring, really) 23.8% in taxes? You would still have $16,000 more than you do now, and you would have $16,000 + the $5,000 you presumably sold in November, to deploy now, at much lower prices. So you can't exactly time when to get back in? You don't have to. If you knew a Bear Market was coming (it has, and I did), why stick to your discipline and lose value? I'm down the past 5 months, but only 4%. I would kick myself if I allowed my holdings to drop over 20% (as the averages have, since late November).

First, I intended to say that in high and rising markets, I often sell 5% or so of my stake in non-dividend-paying companies each year, not just on a one-time basis.

Second, aside from that, I rarely sell anything unless I become concerned that a company's prospects may be on the decline. I like to plan to own over the very long term, and unless I become even more bearish than I am now, don't want to pay cap gains taxes and worry about continually deciding whether it's the right time to jump back in. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Your money, your decision, but... This is what you laid out.

For ease of discussion, let's say you had $100,000 in the Stock Market last November, as all-time highs were hit. You feel (correctly) that it is over-valued. Your discipline says sell 5%.. Great, now you have $95,000.

Today, 5 months later, your $95,000 is worth about $74,000, if your portfolio is reasonably allocated. You have the $5,000 ready to deploy.

Was a value drop of $21,000 worth saving (deferring, really) 23.8% in taxes? You would still have $16,000 more than you do now, and you would have $16,000 + the $5,000 you presumably sold in November, to deploy now, at much lower prices. So you can't exactly time when to get back in? You don't have to. If you knew a Bear Market was coming (it has, and I did), why stick to your discipline and lose value? I'm down the past 5 months, but only 4%. I would kick myself if I allowed my holdings to drop over 20% (as the averages have, since late November). Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Selling 5% a year actually makes a lot of sense Chung Tran. Perhaps not entirely to me, since I'm an Old School deep value contrarian investor. I believe a stock that will never pay a dividend, or have some other event like a buyout that will crystallize profits for shareholders, is nothing more than a piece of paper. Well, maybe I should say "was nothing more than a piece of paper," since public companies mostly don't issue paper share certificates these days. I still use the dividend discount model (net present value of future forecasted dividends) to value shares, along with other valuation metrics.

Now the problem with being that Old School is, in order to make a decent return, you're best off buying when there's blood in the streets, sometimes literally. It's a hard way to make a living, except during the occasional economic crisis or civil war.

Captain Midnight would appear to be "Warren Buffett New School." Actually on an evolutionary scale, he has advanced to a slightly higher level than Buffett. If Buffett is a gorilla, Midnight is a chimp. Buffet looks not just at traditional value criteria, but also the competitive position of a company, and how likely it is to be able to maintain it. And what sort of a return a company can produce when it grows. Someone who knows Buffett and has discussed this with him told me he wants a company to produce a minimum of a 12% return on additional investment (capex plus working capital) over the long term.

In addition, despite being a Democrat who believes he doesn't pay enough taxes, Buffett will jump through hoops to lower his tax bill. One way to do this, reduce taxes on the ultimate beneficial owner of businesses (i.e. the shareholder) is to make sure your businesses don't pay dividends. Say you own shares in a corporation that pays 35% federal income tax. Then that corporation distributes its income by paying dividends. The shareholders pay maybe a 39.6% tax on the dividends, on top of the 35% the corporation already paid. Or that's about what it was like before changes in tax laws during George W. Bush's administration.

So what types of companies meet Buffett's New School Criteria? A competitive moat, good growth, good returns on growth, they don't pay dividends? Companies that can sensibly re-invest all their free cash flow internally? Well, a number of non-dividend paying tech stocks. That's exactly what Midnight described! But, for an Old School investor like me, that stock is just a piece of paper, because it never pays a dividend. Midnight has brilliantly wedded New School to Old School by creating a stock with a 5% dividend yield, that never actually pays a dividend!

What happened to WTF? He needs to read this. He has a good dividend return from his public limited partnership investments, maybe 5% or 7% or whatever. Well, now he can increase it to 20%!!! All he needs to do is sell 20% of his position in a stock every year!

Seriously CM, I like your idea -- it's kind of like dollar cost averaging out of a position. And that's a reasonable thing to do especially when the share price is out of whack with the fundamental value. You've most likely made a lot of money on positions in companies I'd never look at because they weren't cheap enough.

Good post, Tiny. It lays out a sound, fundamentals-type approach to investing. And yes, old school to the core. But you and CM both admitted your disciplined approaches cost you a lot of money WHEN MARKETS TURN BAD.

Both of your discussions work during longer periods when Markets are churning higher. But in 2022 that is a disaster strategy. Hedge Funds are the big winners this year. Because they remain nimble, and not wedded to a philosophy.

Neither of you suggested that you might take a different tone during down times. No put options, no short selling, no selling, say, half of your long positions. Married to intractable strategies. You might say ''you can't time the Market''.. Yeah, heard that one ad nauseum. But anyone who pays attention could see that the FED balance sheet was going to wind down, rates increase, and growth was slowing, 5 months ago. If you've seen my thread on the Dallas Forum, I was saying ''get off margin, get defensive'' by the first of December. Lightly invested since, all my positions are high dividend, low PE. I'm down a little, but vastly outperforming the S&P 500, and trouncing the NASDAQ. My point is simple.. Why keep holding onto your strategy, when it will lose you a lot of money? Stocks are down about 25% this year, on average. You have to make 33% to get back to even. Why punish yourself?

Good post, Tiny. It lays out a sound, fundamentals-type approach to investing. And yes, old school to the core. But you and CM both admitted your disciplined approaches cost you a lot of money WHEN MARKETS TURN BAD.

Both of your discussions work during longer periods when Markets are churning higher. But in 2022 that is a disaster strategy. Hedge Funds are the big winners this year. Because they remain nimble, and not wedded to a philosophy.

Neither of you suggested that you might take a different tone during down times. No put options, no short selling, no selling, say, half of your long positions. Married to intractable strategies. You might say ''you can't time the Market''.. Yeah, heard that one ad nauseum. But anyone who pays attention could see that the FED balance sheet was going to wind down, rates increase, and growth was slowing, 5 months ago. If you've seen my thread on the Dallas Forum, I was saying ''get off margin, get defensive'' by the first of December. Lightly invested since, all my positions are high dividend, low PE. I'm down a little, but vastly outperforming the S&P 500, and trouncing the NASDAQ. My point is simple.. Why keep holding onto your strategy, when it will lose you a lot of money? Stocks are down about 25% this year, on average. You have to make 33% to get back to even. Why punish yourself? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

CT, Actually what I've done isn't that far off of what you've done. If you're holding cheap shares and the price goes up so they're no longer cheap, or a tad expensive, you sell, and you have more cash. I raised a good bit of cash in 2021 because I figured tax rates would go up. I'm probably down less than you are in recent months, low single digits if you include the cash in the portfolio. Which still sucks when inflation is 8.5%.

CM actually has said he hedges with out of the money puts. I figure when I buy a put I'm going to get screwed over by people like market makers and Renaissance Technology, so I have an aversion to it, just like I'd have an aversion to gambling in a casino where the odds aren't in my favor. I could write a book on shorting. There are so many ways to lose money when you're fundamentally right. Back years ago I could consistently make money at it. My record selling short has sucked the last few years, except for a few arbitrage situations.

Ok, good to know. Your post seemed to strongly suggest you go with your pre-set strategy, in a non-wavering disciplined approach. Ditto CM's, I was left with the feeling that you both plow ahead without regard to changing conditions.

I'm down 4% this year.. The NASDAQ was down 4% TODAY. I pity those who buy-and-hold at all cost. With no-cost trading, and ease of exiting mutual fund positions, nobody should be stuck. Big Fund Managers are restricted in size and duration, we, the Individual participants are not. We need to use that as a strength!

...As I noted in a recent post, the Fed typically attempts to follow the "path of least embarrassment." Right now, that's fighting inflation. However, a turn to (relative) fiscal austerity (there aren't going to be any more gigantic covid relief or stimulus packages) will likely cause inflation to dissipate, and then the curtain will come down on any semblance of healthy demand-led growth. What does that mean? Hello, recession. (This is the fakest, shakiest economic "expansion" in modern history.)...

...First, inflation expectations are not baked into expectations to nearly the extent that they were during the great inflation of that period.... Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

...Black Swan shit is bound to happen all over the ding-dang joint. Chuck Schmuckmer says fixing inflation is easy-peasy. The problem is not the supply side at all. The problem is the demand side. His solution is to remove more of the supply of our $$ so we won't be tempted (able to afford) to demand any supplies. But he doesn't stop there. Oh no sir-ry Chucky. He also uses his Galaxy Brain to ensure those that supply us will also see more of their costs increase to help further restrict their supply side by demanding more of their $$ as well. A-N-D he gonna do it all with as litle opposition and input as he possibly can get away with.

Schumer Says the “Only Way” to Reduce Inflation Caused by Biden and Democrats is to Raise Taxes on Americans

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Tuesday said the only way to reduce inflation caused by Joe Biden and the Democrats is to raise taxes on Americans.

Senators Schumer and Manchin discussed a new tax hike and deficit reduction bill as a way to combat inflation.


Bloomberg reported:

Key holdout Senator Joe Manchin said Tuesday he discussed a tax increase and deficit reduction bill with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer as a way to reduce soaring inflation.

The West Virginia Democrat said he is open to using the fast-track budget process to bypass Republicans and ram corporate and individual tax increases through the Senate given that the GOP wants to “keep things the way they are” in the tax code. Manchin said that it would make sense to include cuts to prescription drug costs in the package, which would need the support of all 50 Senate Democrats.

“We talked about the tax code and doing something to combat inflation. He is just as concerned about inflation as I am,” Manchin said leaving Schumer’s office.

Some Democrats, however, remain skeptical that the party can reach a deal after the failed efforts late last year. Manchin, for instance, supports raising the corporate tax rate, but Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, another Democratic holdout, has been adamant in her opposition to increasing it.

Speaking to reporters, Schumer said getting rid of Trump’s tax cuts is the only way to combat inflation.

“If you want to get rid of inflation, the only way to do it is to undo a lot of the Trump tax cuts and raise rates,” Schumer said. “No Republican is ever going to do that, so the only way to get rid of inflation is through reconciliation.”

See? Told ya it was simple as simple does. Crisis averted!
Black Swan. Always fresh, never frozen. It's what's for dinner...