IV

Inflation today can rhyme with the 1970s, but the economy underneath is not the same economy. Back then you had stronger unions, more wage indexation, a younger labor force, lower debt loads, different energy intensity, different CPI methodology, and a Fed that eventually had room to crush demand with very high rates. Today the system is older, more indebted, more financialized, more dependent on asset prices, and far more sensitive to every move in rates. What the chart misses is the balance sheet constraint. In the 1970s, inflation could keep feeding through wages, commodities, and prices because households, businesses, and the government were not carrying today’s debt structure. Now an energy shock hits a system already strained by credit cards, auto loans, mortgages, CRE refinancing, federal interest costs, and falling real wages. That means inflation can turn into demand destruction much faster. It also ignores the CPI construction problem. The 1970s CPI and today’s CPI are not measured the same way, especially around housing. Today’s shelter data relies heavily on OER and rent measures that lag and smooth reality, so overlaying the two periods like they are perfectly comparable is flawed from the start. The 1970s problem was a wage price spiral. Today’s problem is an essentials price squeeze colliding with debt fragility. Energy, freight, food, insurance, utilities, and financing costs rise first. Then households cut discretionary spending. Businesses lose margin. Credit tightens. Hiring slows. The labor market catches down later. Inflation can reaccelerate from here, and the CPI and PPI internals already show pressure. But this economy may not be able to absorb another inflation wave without breaking demand. The better read is not 1970s all over again. It is inflation now, demand destruction later.

He’s a damn joke, after two years of having a smear campaign against her and now suddenly saying he would want to work with her again, so she can save the franchise. Please get the hell out of here. He needs help.

The whole context? Justin specifically says no absolutely not about wanting to be in the "manosphere" but if his books reached men in the manosphere then maybe some good will come of it. But of course people like to twist his words.

Spinning 101 Picture one : lively supporter claiming Justin is headed to the manosphere & said so in his deposition. *That's a lie. asked her to send a screenshot* Picture two: deposition he is asked about the manosphere but do you see the search bar blocking the bottom?