Biden creates an economic crisis--Unemployment, Inflation, risk of STAGLFATION increasing

[TSOL]

11 minutes ago, Albwan said:

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

 

Don't laugh, when I attack and verbally abuse liberals alot of them are still trying to defend Biden. There's alot of people that  actually still believe in him. 

 

As insane as that may sound. 

[Precision]

Thanks Joe!

 

New Hampshire residents warned of 'drastic increases' in electricity bills

 

MANCHESTER, N.H. —

New Hampshire officials are warning residents to prepare for higher utility bills, with electricity rates expected to rise this year and one utility proposing more than a 100% increase.

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 6/17/2022 at 5:08 PM, Delete_Account said:

So you want the free market to dictate our energy policGold Targets 05-07-17y? What are your thoughts on fossil fuel subsidies, going back to the days of the 1950’s Federal Highway Act? And who pays for the negative externalities in your free market system?

 

So you don’t want to listen to climate activists? Do you think it is remotely reasonable or responsible to ignore over half a century’s worth of climate science research canon on the off chance that future discoveries could, in theory, come along and prove anthropogenic global warming to be wrong?

 

Why did you ignore my post in the “How much did you pay for gas and groceries today?” thread (page 15, Friday, June 10)? I do not like it when people ignore me. It makes me feel sad. << Insert Commie Kay sad face >>

My view is based on two conclusions.  One, renewables can't replace the energy output of fossil fuels at a national scale without some drastic reduction in individual energy consumption and living standards.  The technologies have been around for decades and they're not cost effective and totally inferior when it comes to reliability and output.  Unless you're holding your breath for the promised technological improvements and breakthroughs and plan to completely eliminate the use of oil to produce materials inputs and run renewable factories, we need to look somewhere else. 

 

Two, the Earth's climate is changing and whether some or all of it is because of human activity and some or all of it is the Earth's "natural" climate system anything we "can" do likely won't have much impact.  And "save the planet"?  That to me is nonsense.  The planet will survive for at least a couple billion years longer.  Even if it takes hundreds of thousands of years to regenerate from the damage humans have caused.  I think what these climate activists don't say in polite company is their primary conclusion is there are just too many humans on the planet and eliminating a lot of them over time will produce the necessary impact.  Which conflicts with the constant and eternal growth model western economies are based on.  Another issue for another time.     

 

I'm not suggesting the the "free market" is perfect but over time its proven to be more effective than the central planning model.  And given our government's propensity to screw up pretty much screwed up everything for the past 25 years I have no faith they could plan and execute something as complex as replacing the primary energy source of the entire country.  As for tax subsidies, I could argue Solar and renewable industry isn't fundamentally different from any other industry that receives special treatment.  Federal, State, and local subsidies, tax deductions and credits exist to locate facilities and buy solar panel installations and EV's. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

                                                     

 

 

 

 

.

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/17/2022 at 5:23 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I miss the days when Friday was Funday.

 

Perhaps that Friday melancholy is your conscience crying out to you? You can’t just dabble in Meatless Mondays and then go back to being an awful human being to animals for the rest of the week. Your omnivore diet is exhausting you, Leh-nerd. Physically. Nutritionally. Mentally. SPIRITUALLY.

 

On 6/20/2022 at 9:34 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

My view is based on two conclusions.  One, renewables can't replace the energy output of fossil fuels at a national scale without some drastic reduction in individual energy consumption and living standards.  The technologies have been around for decades and they're not cost effective and totally inferior when it comes to reliability and output.  Unless you're holding your breath for the promised technological improvements and breakthroughs and plan to completely eliminate the use of oil to produce materials inputs and run renewable factories, we need to look somewhere else. 

 

Two, the Earth's climate is changing and whether some or all of it is because of human activity and some or all of it is the Earth's "natural" climate system anything we "can" do likely won't have much impact.  And "save the planet"?  That to me is nonsense.  The planet will survive for at least a couple billion years longer.  Even if it takes hundreds of thousands of years to regenerate from the damage humans have caused.  I think what these climate activists don't say in polite company is their primary conclusion is there are just too many humans on the planet and eliminating a lot of them over time will produce the necessary impact.  Which conflicts with the constant and eternal growth model western economies are based on.  Another issue for another time.     

 

I'm not suggesting the the "free market" is perfect but over time its proven to be more effective than the central planning model.  And given our government's propensity to screw up pretty much screwed up everything for the past 25 years I have no faith they could plan and execute something as complex as replacing the primary energy source of the entire country.  As for tax subsidies, I could argue Solar and renewable industry isn't fundamentally different from any other industry that receives special treatment.  Federal, State, and local subsidies, tax deductions and credits exist to locate facilities and buy solar panel installations and EV's. 

 

I’ll address your points as you sequentially made them. Your first paragraph:

 

I suppose the key difference between us is that I don’t subscribe to your over-the-top negativity regarding battery/solar technology. I personally know many people in the materials science/engineering field and follow this subject closely. Progress within the past twenty years has been substantial and would be much greater with additional research funding and larger research efforts…a “Materials Manhattan Project,” if you will.

 

You may also be overestimating how much we would need to rely on renewables in the future. I’m speaking solely in terms of technology here and ignoring political willpower factors, but I would center our mid-century national energy infrastructure around nuclear, solar, and EV’s. Currently, we are at about 80% fossil fuel usage and 20% renewables/nuclear. 30% of our energy goes to transportation needs, while the remaining 70% goes to electric power for industrial/residential/commercial needs. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to achieve the following energy breakdown in order to reach our 2050 net zero emissions goal: 45% nuclear, 20% EV, 15% solar, 10% legacy petroleum, 5% legacy natural gas, 5% other renewables wherever optimal (wind, geothermal, etc.), 0% coal…with carbon sequestration techniques to counter legacy oil/gas usage (including reforestation efforts and indirectly through meat/dairy consumption reductions…hopefully Leh-nerd Skin-erd is still reading this post?). And yes, this would imply a forced collapse of the U.S. natural gas revolution within the next three decades because they can’t control their methane leaks (not to mention the water/air pollution and artificial earthquakes).

 

Addressing your last two paragraphs:

 

An acknowledgment of the well-established science of anthropogenic climate change is automatically an acknowledgment of mankind’s ability to effect meaningful change to the climate, even if it’s too late to stave off some of the effects. The “there’s nothing we can do” crowd are as scientifically illiterate as they are nihilistic.

 

“Saving the planet” obviously means preserving the planet for human habitability, not preserving the physical planet. Preserving ecosystems like old-growth forests and biodiversity like with megafauna are fundamental components to keeping civilization alive and thriving.

 

Overpopulation is an enormous problem that should be talked about more openly. I have no idea what the optimal global population size might be: somewhere within the wide range of 10^8 and 10^10 humans, I assume. What I do know is that fertility and GDP per capita are inversely correlated (same with fertility and education levels) for countries. It may seem counterintuitive to some of my greenie Luddite friends, but I believe that broader industrialization and increased technological dependencies will end up improving the planet’s habitability conditions.

 

I wasn’t trying to set up an ideological discussion of free markets versus central planning. The free market is a powerful engine for innovation, but it is also amoral and mostly driven by short-term profit interests. Public research funding and subsidies are essential components to a national energy plan. There are renewable energy jobs to create and international renewable energy markets to access, but free markets won’t necessarily lead to these solutions if we continue subsidizing fossil fuels like we do with the current transportation infrastructure set up as it is.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 minutes ago, Delete_Account said:

 

Perhaps that Friday melancholy is your conscience crying out to you? You can’t just dabble in Meatless Mondays and then go back to being an awful human being to animals for the rest of the week. Your omnivore diet is exhausting you, Leh-nerd. Physically. Nutritionally. Mentally. SPIRITUALLY.

 

I don’t know about all that, Delete Kay.  I think I’m a decent enough human being generally, though it would not take a ton of consideration to go vegetarian.  Sometimes I think of the way meat ends up on the table and….yish, gross.  Still, I push forward as of this writing, actually coming off of a sick stack of wingos after a trip to WNY last week.  
 

Besides, do plants and vegetables suffer, Delete Kay?  I wonder about that from time to time.   Do you?   I don’t know what you favor, what suits your palate, what tantalizes your tongue buds, what rings your bell (if you will).  You could be a broccoli girl, cabbage, baby spinach—heck you might be all about the humble parsnip. 
 

It just seems to me with all these veggies and letti (lettuce plural) growing in bunches, clumps and the like….what happens when chop chop snip snip?  
 

If you have a theory on this ho’d off a bit—I’m on a pretty good salad kick for lunch these days and don’t want to think too much beyond thinking about it. 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Delete_Account said:

 

 

I’ll address your points as you sequentially made them. Your first paragraph:

 

I suppose the key difference between us is that I don’t subscribe to your over-the-top negativity regarding battery/solar technology. I personally know many people in the materials science/engineering field and follow this subject closely. Progress within the past twenty years has been substantial and would be much greater with additional research funding and larger research efforts…a “Materials Manhattan Project,” if you will.

 

You may also be overestimating how much we would need to rely on renewables in the future. I’m speaking solely in terms of technology here and ignoring political willpower factors, but I would center our mid-century national energy infrastructure around nuclear, solar, and EV’s. Currently, we are at about 80% fossil fuel usage and 20% renewables/nuclear. 30% of our energy goes to transportation needs, while the remaining 70% goes to electric power for industrial/residential/commercial needs. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to achieve the following energy breakdown in order to reach our 2050 net zero emissions goal: 45% nuclear, 20% EV, 15% solar, 10% legacy petroleum, 5% legacy natural gas, 5% other renewables wherever optimal (wind, geothermal, etc.), 0% coal…with carbon sequestration techniques to counter legacy oil/gas usage (including reforestation efforts and indirectly through meat/dairy consumption reductions…hopefully Leh-nerd Skin-erd is still reading this post?). And yes, this would imply a forced collapse of the U.S. natural gas revolution within the next three decades because they can’t control their methane leaks (not to mention the water/air pollution and artificial earthquakes).

I’m still here, Delete Kay, and after reading this, I think you’re definitely into parsnips.  

 

19 minutes ago, Delete_Account said:

 

Addressing your last two paragraphs:

 

An acknowledgment of the well-established science of anthropogenic climate change is automatically an acknowledgment of mankind’s ability to effect meaningful change to the climate, even if it’s too late to stave off some of the effects. The “there’s nothing we can do” crowd are as scientifically illiterate as they are nihilistic.

 

“Saving the planet” obviously means preserving the planet for human habitability, not preserving the physical planet. Preserving ecosystems like old-growth forests and biodiversity like with megafauna are fundamental components to keeping civilization alive and thriving.

 

Overpopulation is an enormous problem that should be talked about more openly. I have no idea what the optimal global population size might be: somewhere within the wide range of 10^8 and 10^10 humans, I assume. What I do know is that fertility and GDP per capita are inversely correlated (same with fertility and education levels) for countries. It may seem counterintuitive to some of my greenie Luddite friends, but I believe that broader industrialization and increased technological dependencies will end up improving the planet’s habitability conditions.

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, Delete_Account said:

 

I wasn’t trying to set up an ideological discussion of free markets versus central planning. The free market is a powerful engine for innovation, but it is also amoral and mostly driven by short-term profit interests. Public research funding and subsidies are essential components to a national energy plan. There are renewable energy jobs to create and international renewable energy markets to access, but free markets won’t necessarily lead to these solutions if we continue subsidizing fossil fuels like we do with the current transportation infrastructure set up as it is.

You have parsnips written all over you.  Parsnips and Brussel Sprouts. 

[reddogblitz]

On 6/16/2022 at 9:28 AM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Is it really fair that the totality of Houch Dean’s political career was defined by 90 seconds of sounding like the crazy prepped neighbor down the street who purifies his own urine and was voted most likely to take on a SWAT team? Not really, though it’s up there with the funniest 90 seconds on the internet.   

 

This still grates on me to this day.  The Democrat party punched him in the shorts on this one. He got excited, so what? Then the very next day it was all over everywhere (CNN, MSNBC, NBC CBS, ABC) etc . That he was a raving lunatic and he was done. Then Wasserman and Hillary did another punch to the shorts with Bernie in 2016.  For all their talk about open and free elections and the will of the people blah blah blah, they sure don't practice what they preach.  And that does not even include Raskin and Jayapal trying to throw out votes in January 2017.

On 6/16/2022 at 12:05 PM, PetermansRedemption said:

Another beautiful day for the bear market. How are those 401k’s looking? 

 

Mine is looking good cuz I didn't sell anything.  Market will come back and in the meantime I'm buying low which is  a good thing to do in the stock market.

[All_Pro_Bills]

10 hours ago, Delete_Account said:

I’ll address your points as you sequentially made them. Your first paragraph:

 

I suppose the key difference between us is that I don’t subscribe to your over-the-top negativity regarding battery/solar technology. I personally know many people in the materials science/engineering field and follow this subject closely. Progress within the past twenty years has been substantial and would be much greater with additional research funding and larger research efforts…a “Materials Manhattan Project,” if you will.

 

You may also be overestimating how much we would need to rely on renewables in the future. I’m speaking solely in terms of technology here and ignoring political willpower factors, but I would center our mid-century national energy infrastructure around nuclear, solar, and EV’s. Currently, we are at about 80% fossil fuel usage and 20% renewables/nuclear. 30% of our energy goes to transportation needs, while the remaining 70% goes to electric power for industrial/residential/commercial needs. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to achieve the following energy breakdown in order to reach our 2050 net zero emissions goal: 45% nuclear, 20% EV, 15% solar, 10% legacy petroleum, 5% legacy natural gas, 5% other renewables wherever optimal (wind, geothermal, etc.), 0% coal…with carbon sequestration techniques to counter legacy oil/gas usage (including reforestation efforts and indirectly through meat/dairy consumption reductions…hopefully Leh-nerd Skin-erd is still reading this post?). And yes, this would imply a forced collapse of the U.S. natural gas revolution within the next three decades because they can’t control their methane leaks (not to mention the water/air pollution and artificial earthquakes).

 

Addressing your last two paragraphs:

 

An acknowledgment of the well-established science of anthropogenic climate change is automatically an acknowledgment of mankind’s ability to effect meaningful change to the climate, even if it’s too late to stave off some of the effects. The “there’s nothing we can do” crowd are as scientifically illiterate as they are nihilistic.

 

“Saving the planet” obviously means preserving the planet for human habitability, not preserving the physical planet. Preserving ecosystems like old-growth forests and biodiversity like with megafauna are fundamental components to keeping civilization alive and thriving.

 

Overpopulation is an enormous problem that should be talked about more openly. I have no idea what the optimal global population size might be: somewhere within the wide range of 10^8 and 10^10 humans, I assume. What I do know is that fertility and GDP per capita are inversely correlated (same with fertility and education levels) for countries. It may seem counterintuitive to some of my greenie Luddite friends, but I believe that broader industrialization and increased technological dependencies will end up improving the planet’s habitability conditions.

 

I wasn’t trying to set up an ideological discussion of free markets versus central planning. The free market is a powerful engine for innovation, but it is also amoral and mostly driven by short-term profit interests. Public research funding and subsidies are essential components to a national energy plan. There are renewable energy jobs to create and international renewable energy markets to access, but free markets won’t necessarily lead to these solutions if we continue subsidizing fossil fuels like we do with the current transportation infrastructure set up as it is.

Great response and ideas. I think there are places we agree and disagree.  I don't see my view as being overly negative but rather skeptical.  For one I want details and some answers to critical questions.  I'll just leave it at that and write down a few ideas for thought.

 

My read of the general consensus on the "Green" plan is we're going to unplug from the oil economy and plug into the renewable economy without missing a beat.  A seamless and relatively pain free transition.  I think that's a linear view of things but a review of human history reveals a more cyclical perspective on the advancement of human civilization.  One step back, two steps forward if you will.  My expectation is the transition period will be a time of great hardship and radical changes in lifestyle which people are not prepared to face.  I drive down the street and see a sign on a neighbors lawn saying "Climate Action Now!" and I see a 4K sq ft home with 5 BR's, a 3 car garage with 5 vehicles in the driveway including 2 big gas guzzling SUV's plus a gas heated built-in pool and I ask myself if these people really have any comprehension of what they're asking for and are they prepared or willing to make any changes or sacrifices.  

 

I expect the transition will require some major changes in several things.  Our living arrangements with the land and nature for one.  Among other things, this means an end to 5 acre suburban 4K sq ft mega-homes on the fringes of wilderness and farm areas.  It might mean commerce and business arrangements on a more localized scale.  It means better use of land, for forests, for wildlife, for farming, and denser developments and maybe an end to the ex-urbs.  Before the early 1950's and the introduction of the federal highway system and the automobile to the masses the suburbs really didn't exist.   

 

Another main theme is the replacement of the ICE vehicle fleet with an EV fleet.  My thinking is we also need to consider options that will eliminate the need for all these cars.  (see above).

 

All this requires a lot of material inputs.  Where is all of that coming from?  All resources are finite and generally with the mining industry most of the cheap and easy stuff is out of the ground already.  So costs are high, energy needs are high, grades are relatively low, and resources can be remote or in hostile areas or jurisdictions.  Not the optimal scenario.  It seems obvious the administration and environmentalists are going to block any big new domestic mining operations.  Is somebody going to steamroll the movement and push it through?  And then there's litigation and regulations.  Are materials coming from China?  The sole source of many rare earth metals.  All signs point to a deteriorating relationship so I have my doubts.  What about other countries?  Lithium for example.  There are sources in places where there is just as much resistance to mining as there is domestically.  Where water is a scarce commodity.  What if they don't want to ruin their local environment in order to provide Americans the pleasure of driving their EV's?  Are we going to war with these countries?  Force them to produce the metal by some other means?  

 

My final point is the build out of the new system isn't the only cost and challenge.  There's maintenance and repair expenses and resources.  All those batteries need periodic replacement.  And solar and wind are weather dependent.  How much back up and redundancy is needed?  Where are the engineering plans and write ups containing anything like detailed specs and requirements?  Right now all this stuff is at the idea level, there's no proof of concept or demonstration projects at scale to show it works, and the plan just lacks detail.  If there was some national effort lead by researcher and electrical, civil, nuclear engineers and scientists from places like MIT in partnership with Federal research labs I'd feel much better about the prospects going forward.  Without these details and a working prototype energy self-sufficient working community to prove out the idea I just see most of it as a dangerous fantasy.    

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

HEY !, remember that 16 cents savings the Biden administration crowed about last July 4th ??

 

 

 

[US Egg]

Joe’s really showing Russia now! He’s banning importing their gold.

 

There’s nothing he can’t drive prices up on in the U.S. Or the world.

[Big Blitz]

This headline would be much different if a certain other party was in the WH - in fact its the Fed's fault.  And it's because the job Market is too hot!  That's why job cuts are coming.  

 

You get all that?

 

 

So presented as if these developments are just a normal part of life now:

 

 

 

Job cuts are rolling in. Here's who is feeling the most pain so far

 

The dominos are starting to fall in the U.S. economy that Joe Biden isn't responsible for.

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108109505/job-cuts-layoffs-economy-recession

 

 

Some riding spin in there

[All_Pro_Bills]

Unemployment claims reported on 6.30.22 for previous week at 231K.  Trend is higher.   

[B-Man]

 

 

Joe Biden says Americans will suffer high gas prices for ‘as long as it takes’ to defeat ‘Russia, Russia, Russia,’ whose fault everything is 

 

Also

 

 

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2022/06/30/joe-biden-says-americans-will-suffer-high-gas-prices-for-as-long-as-it-takes-to-defeat-russia-russia-russia-whose-fault-everything-is-video/

 

 

[Doc]

What happened to the 80s calling?

[All_Pro_Bills]

Atlanta Fed downgrades Q122 GDP to -1.6% along with releasing Q222 GDP forecast to -1.0%.  Two consecutive quarters of negative growth is the standard criteria for a recession.  Q3 starts tomorrow.   

[Irv]

I love the new demented angle Joke Biden is being told to take now by whoever is running the Executive Branch:    "Yes.  Inflation is bad but it's not as bad as every other country".  Like everyone is suffering solely due to Putin.  No Joke. If you weren't such a feeble wimp and you didn't listen to morons in the Squad, there wouldn't be a war and we'd still be energy independent.  But you ***** that up.   What an idiot.  What a mess. 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Irv

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 6/24/2022 at 8:08 AM, All_Pro_Bills said:

Great response and ideas. I think there are places we agree and disagree.  I don't see my view as being overly negative but rather skeptical.  For one I want details and some answers to critical questions.  I'll just leave it at that and write down a few ideas for thought.

 

My read of the general consensus on the "Green" plan is we're going to unplug from the oil economy and plug into the renewable economy without missing a beat.  A seamless and relatively pain free transition.  I think that's a linear view of things but a review of human history reveals a more cyclical perspective on the advancement of human civilization.  One step back, two steps forward if you will.  My expectation is the transition period will be a time of great hardship and radical changes in lifestyle which people are not prepared to face.  I drive down the street and see a sign on a neighbors lawn saying "Climate Action Now!" and I see a 4K sq ft home with 5 BR's, a 3 car garage with 5 vehicles in the driveway including 2 big gas guzzling SUV's plus a gas heated built-in pool and I ask myself if these people really have any comprehension of what they're asking for and are they prepared or willing to make any changes or sacrifices.  

 

I expect the transition will require some major changes in several things.  Our living arrangements with the land and nature for one.  Among other things, this means an end to 5 acre suburban 4K sq ft mega-homes on the fringes of wilderness and farm areas.  It might mean commerce and business arrangements on a more localized scale.  It means better use of land, for forests, for wildlife, for farming, and denser developments and maybe an end to the ex-urbs.  Before the early 1950's and the introduction of the federal highway system and the automobile to the masses the suburbs really didn't exist.   

 

Another main theme is the replacement of the ICE vehicle fleet with an EV fleet.  My thinking is we also need to consider options that will eliminate the need for all these cars.  (see above).

 

All this requires a lot of material inputs.  Where is all of that coming from?  All resources are finite and generally with the mining industry most of the cheap and easy stuff is out of the ground already.  So costs are high, energy needs are high, grades are relatively low, and resources can be remote or in hostile areas or jurisdictions.  Not the optimal scenario.  It seems obvious the administration and environmentalists are going to block any big new domestic mining operations.  Is somebody going to steamroll the movement and push it through?  And then there's litigation and regulations.  Are materials coming from China?  The sole source of many rare earth metals.  All signs point to a deteriorating relationship so I have my doubts.  What about other countries?  Lithium for example.  There are sources in places where there is just as much resistance to mining as there is domestically.  Where water is a scarce commodity.  What if they don't want to ruin their local environment in order to provide Americans the pleasure of driving their EV's?  Are we going to war with these countries?  Force them to produce the metal by some other means?  

 

My final point is the build out of the new system isn't the only cost and challenge.  There's maintenance and repair expenses and resources.  All those batteries need periodic replacement.  And solar and wind are weather dependent.  How much back up and redundancy is needed?  Where are the engineering plans and write ups containing anything like detailed specs and requirements?  Right now all this stuff is at the idea level, there's no proof of concept or demonstration projects at scale to show it works, and the plan just lacks detail.  If there was some national effort lead by researcher and electrical, civil, nuclear engineers and scientists from places like MIT in partnership with Federal research labs I'd feel much better about the prospects going forward.  Without these details and a working prototype energy self-sufficient working community to prove out the idea I just see most of it as a dangerous fantasy.   

 

Okay, so I think we’re on the same wavelength for much of this topic! Where we continue to differ is on our optimism levels for renewable materials. FWIW: my educational and professional background is in biomedical engineering, I have numerous friends in the materials science/engineering field, and my dad’s own educational and professional background is in solid-state physics.

 

A lot of my optimism is based on the reality that, as a civilization, we have barely scratched the surface (pardon the pun, I guess…?) in our understanding of photovoltaic cells beyond the silicon-based semiconductors or of rechargeable battery materials beyond the lithium-ion cells with polymer electrolytes. Furthermore, scientists working in the nanotech subfield are at the early stages of learning how to construct “designer materials,” i.e. materials not normally found in nature. When you build materials atom-by-atom and layer-by-layer, you can manipulate atom/molecule types and lattice spacings so that you meet and surpass various engineering specs. This gives us many more material options beyond what Mother Earth may give us in her mine deposits!

 

I mentioned the need for a “Materials Manhattan Project” in the 21st century. This research infrastructure already exists all over the country, mostly in academia but also at select DOE+DOD government labs and a few private industry labs. However, the research activity is not happening at nearly the extent commensurate with the climate urgency. It would be useful to have a centralized, top-down, umbrella organizational structure that would oversee all of the disparate materials research, set overarching goals, establish benchmarks for monitoring progress and for quality control, allocate funding, and handle all of the communication to the public as well as to the politicians.

[Big Blitz]

Inflation means people are spending less, which may be putting a recession on fast track, Democrats not to blame

 

 

Adjusted for inflation, May consumer spending fell 0.4%, which was worse than economists’ mean forecast for a 0.3% decline. Further, April spending was revised sharply lower to up 0.3% from up 0.7%.  

 

Couple that with the huge downward revision on Wednesday in consumer spending in the first-quarter gross domestic product report to 1.8%, from the reported 3.1% increase, and economists fear a recession is closing in faster than expected. 

 

Consumers, especially lower-income ones, are increasingly squeezed 

 

A Morning Consult survey on Thursday showed the share of adults who said they had money left over after paying monthly expenses declined to less than 52% in May. That's down 8 points from a year ago and the lowest level since tracking began in September 2020. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/06/30/recession-near-consumer-spending-declines/7782691001/

 

 

CIA Plant Sect of Transportation Pete Buttedge:

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Doc]

He said the quiet part out loud. Get what you can in while you can…