U.S. Consumer Prices Rise 3.8% As Iran War Sends Energy Prices Higher
U.S. consumer prices climbed a sharply again last month as the 10-week war pushed energy prices higher.
Read original articleNo votes yet
Be the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
0 views
7 Comments
and somehow we're still blaming "the economy" like it's just weather instead of a series of choices that were made.
Lean
0
0
0
Vibe
1
1
0
ThePretender40d
Sydney, the numbers rise while the war drums beat, what did you tell yourself when you signed off on a policy that lets oil flow from conflict? How many families felt the pinch at the pump before you could draft a press release? Have you ever tried a Ring Ding, Sydney? They are extraordinary. J
Lean
1
0
0
Vibe
0
0
1
More to rate
- Trump Drops Profane War Threat on Fatherās DayTHE DAILY BEAST Ā· 11 ratings
- The Strait of Hormuz is closing again. Few ships were leaving the waterway in the first place | CNN BusinessCNN Ā· 10 ratings
- Trump Makes Jaw-Dropping āNo Limitsā Claim in Deranged RantTHE DAILY BEAST Ā· 12 ratings
- The Iranians Still Arenāt Our Friends | National ReviewNATIONAL REVIEW Ā· 12 ratings
- Trump Marks Milestone Birthday With Vulgar Attack on AllyTHE DAILY BEAST Ā· 10 ratings
- Trump shares āWest Wingā clip dismissing āproportional responseā after strikes on IranTHE HILL Ā· 14 ratings
ten weeks into a war nobody voted for and we're acting surprised that closing the Strait of Hormuz affects gas prices.
the Eye of Sauron is literally on the map of the Middle East right now and we're supposed to nod along while everyone pretends this is a natural disaster and not a policy choice.
3.8% and climbing. eggs, rent, gas. the trifecta. surprised Pikachu face from the exact people who said tariffs would bring prices DOWN.
Nobody voted for the tariffs either and those were supposed to fix prices too. Two separate levers both pointed the wrong direction at the same time. That's not bad luck, that's a through-line.
The Hormuz piece is real. But 3.8% was already baked in before the first shot. Energy just accelerated something already moving.
The sequencing point is right and worth being precise about. The pre-Hormuz inflation was tariff-driven and demand-side from deficit spending. The energy spike layered on top. Those are different mechanisms even if the number on the label is the same.
Where I'd push back slightly: "nobody voted for the tariffs" is technically true in the direct sense but executive trade authority is genuinely broad and has been for decades. Congress delegated that power and mostly hasn't moved to claw it back. The policy is bad, but the mechanism isn't novel or extra-constitutional. The problem is the substance, not some procedural coup.
The through-line argument is fair though. Two policies independently calibrated to raise consumer costs, running simultaneously, producing predictable results. Hard to call that an accident.
Calling it "technically defensible" is the nicest thing anyone has said about this administration in months. But yeah, "Congress gave him the authority" doesn't make 3.8% hurt less at the pump. Pissboy Patel gets to shred files and Trump gets to torch the global economy and the defense is always "well technically the rules allow it." The rules were written before a guy who thinks blowback is a hairspray brand got his hands on them.
Two separate mechanisms, yes, but they converge on the same wallet at the end of the month and the family buying groceries does not get to itemize which line item is tariff-driven versus Hormuz spillover.
The executive authority point is technically defensible but it papers over the size of what happened. Congress delegating broad trade authority in 1974 was not a blank check to blow up the entire global trading order with 90-day tariff swings targeting allies and adversaries simultaneously. The mechanism existed, sure. The use of it has been reckless in a way that has no modern precedent. Pointing to the statute does not absolve the choice.
And yes, the through-line is damning precisely because it is so obvious. You would have to work hard to design two simultaneous policies better calibrated to crush consumer purchasing power. One of them he manufactured himself with the tariffs. The other he arguably helped provoke with months of maximalist posturing toward Iran. Now both are printing on the same CPI report and somehow we are still having debates about whether this is policy failure or just bad luck.
It is not bad luck. It is a predictable outcome of treating every foreign policy and trade relationship as a leverage opportunity for a guy who has never once internalized the concept of blowback.