They’re the wrong numbers and people misunderstand the numbers. The consumption basket for CPI (food) is determined by consumption surveys. Not desire or historical consumption. You can have less and lower quality food with a rising spend on food.
For example, food away from home is down. People cannot afford to go out to eat as much. Rather than reflect the higher cost of going out to eat, the consumption basket reduces the proportion of food away from home.
There are also hard limits on food spending. People have limited money. Instead what you seeing is a continued increase in SNAP and record food bank usage.
Make no mistake. The young family or median person is worse off with food security today despite spending more.
>For example, food away from home is down. People cannot afford to go out to eat as much. Rather than reflect the higher cost of going out to eat, the consumption basket reduces the proportion of food away from home.
He specifically mentions "groceries" so trying to retcon his argument to being about food away from home doesn't make any sense.
Moreover BLS publishes price indices for each item in the basket, so you can exclude the effect of the basket weights changing. Looking at the "Food Away from Home" category, that only rose 33% since the pandemic, not much higher than the overall inflation of 25.4%, and a far cry from ">50% on their groceries".
Agree it will land more stable for most parties but it will be turbulent getting there. Global free trade under the USD has created many structural fragilities. Principally that we have global overproduction outside the USA.
That’s entirely the point. Leave the USA financial system or contribute more. If you pick an single alternative currency I’ll run through the reasons why most would choose the US Dollar.
$30B over ten years to reduce blackouts and grid instability is a good deal. For reference, the 2021 Texas blackout caused ~$100b in damage.
Very very few people in the power industry want to run coal plants- but they cannot in good conscience turn them off. The whole “turn off the lights” mantra is not funny. It’s unfortunate the grid is fragile and facing increased demand. Operating coal plants, preferably at zero or super low utilization rates, for another ten years or so until the grid is more resilient seems reasonable.
If you win in lower court you can still bring the case to the Supreme Court to create national uniformity. One of the consolidated cases for Brown vs. Board of Education won in Delaware while others lost.
That is the appropriate way to determine national uniformity in law.
IANAL, but IIUC (and I many be wrong) if there is no controversy (e.g., competing precedents in multiple jurisdictions) there's nothing to litigate.
Moreover, assuming that the "winner" of a case has gotten "relief," they no longer have standing to sue.
That said, the issue at hand doesn't include a decision on the merits of a case, but rather what the scope of a Preliminary Injunction (PI)[0] might be.
In the example I used, if a court implements a PI it's to limit the potential harm to those impacted by the harm claimed by the plaintiffs.
The SCOTUS ruling limits the scope of such a PI to just those who are either directly named as parties to the case and/or those within the jurisdiction of the district court.
In that circumstance, there is no set of cases to be consolidated since no trial has been held.
Given a government acting in bad faith, this leaves open the option that those harmed by the action of the government can be detained and moved outside the jurisdiction of the district court. At which point, according the the SCOTUS majority, the government can cause the harm being litigated and anyone caught up in this would need to bring a new case in the new federal district jurisdiction, even though Federal law applies everywhere in the US.
Please note that at the point a PI is granted, no one has "won" anything -- only that the judge has ruled that there is harm (and as such, standing to bring the case) and that those bringing the case are likely to succeed on the merits.
Again, since a PI isn't precedent, and the litigants claiming harm have already gotten relief -- at least until the trial is complete, they have no standing to push anyone to extend the PI to additional litigants in other Federal district jurisdictions, even though the legal question is relevant across all those jurisdictions, as it's Federal action.
If litigants receive relief through a PI, it addresses their specific harm. Extending it nationwide may be unwanted if other jurisdictions have different views on the policy. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures relief is tailored to the parties or district, preventing a single district judge from dictating national policy.
While federal law applies uniformly, reasonable people and courts can disagree on controversial issues. Localized PIs allow diverse judicial input and foster a broader dialogue before a final ruling.
Court shopping for nationwide injunctions, common in cases like Obama’s DACA or Trump’s policies, lets one judge halt national policy…
Affirming a democratically elected executive’s mandate, Obama with DACA or Trump with immigration reforms is reasonable and respects the separation of powers.
IMO Congress needs to act more effectively, passing clear laws on issues like immigration to reduce reliance on executive orders and judicial battles.
>If litigants receive relief through a PI, it addresses their specific harm. Extending it nationwide may be unwanted if other jurisdictions have different views on the policy.
That doesn't matter if it's a federal issue (which it would have to be if it's in federal court). A single district judge dictating national policy temporarily, while a higher court makes its determination, is exactly what they're there for.
Either the activity is legal (nationwide) by federal law, or it's illegal (nationwide) by federal law. Limiting to the plaintiffs violates equal protection.
Funny thing about a recession now is you can have standards of living increase for 10s millions of people due to how concentrated consumption and wealth is. Weird times
What you are saying is simply not sufficient. Norway does more goods trade with China and for more advanced / complex goods. Norway is funding USA’s direct geopolitical competitor.
In case it’s not obvious, 100% tariffs on China means economic decoupling. Pick a side or strike out on your own but globalization as we know it just ended.
> Norway does more goods trade with China and for more advanced / complex goods. Norway is funding USA’s direct geopolitical competitor.
Generally, if you want other countries to do what you want, then you aim for that rather than pushing them towards China, or worse, making China seem like the best trading partner in the world.
China always seems to play the long game and it's so much better to buy from a reliable trading partner rather than one where the rules can change with no notice. Almost the entire point of having trading deals between nations is to provide predictability. The U.S. is now going to be treated as an international pariah with pretty much every nation aiming to reduce trade with the U.S.
For example, food away from home is down. People cannot afford to go out to eat as much. Rather than reflect the higher cost of going out to eat, the consumption basket reduces the proportion of food away from home.
There are also hard limits on food spending. People have limited money. Instead what you seeing is a continued increase in SNAP and record food bank usage.
Make no mistake. The young family or median person is worse off with food security today despite spending more.
reply