TheLastRefuge Profile picture
Aug 11, 2021 45 tweets 12 min read Read on X
(1) When they say inflation will "spike" or increase this year, and then "come back down next year", what they are saying is the price will skyrocket.... AND THEN the price will remain high.

EX. A lemon goes from $0.49 to $0.99 today. And next year remains $0.99 !
Image
(2) Inflation is a measure of the change in a price.

Inflation is usually presented in terms of percentage of change. Currently inflation is running in excess of 10% this year, on an annual basis (annualized). Meaning prices (on aggregate) are 10% more than last year.
(3) The rate of inflation for fuel, unleaded regular gasoline, is up 60% on an annualized basis.

When the WH and FED say inflation will "level off" next year, they are saying the price next year will remain at least 60% more than last year, and will increase *more slowly*.
(4) Saying "inflation is transitional", or "inflation will come back down", is a misnomer intended to lull you to sleep and accept what Barack Obama said years ago: "under my policies prices will necessarily skyrocket".
(5) Why such a massive one-year spike, and then a leveling off with prices remaining high?

The answer is not difficult; however, the financial media have a vested interest in you not understanding.
(6) For the entirety of President Trump's term in office his economic policies were intentionally lowering prices.

For four years we were in a deflationary, or static place with consumer prices. [I'll explain in a minute]
(7) Four years of static pricing and dropping pricing that was specifically due to America-First economic policy.

Now... RIGHT NOW.... in one year, with the America-First agenda being destroyed, we are getting FOUR years of inflation compacted into one year.
(8) Right after the election the Fed knew what the reversal of Trump's trade and economic policies would do. That's why they said they would "accept inflation" in 2021.

reuters.com/business/energ…
(9) That’s Fed admission is because – while they will not say it openly, they know there’s no way to stop it.

Massive inflation is a direct result of the multinational agenda of the Biden administration; it’s a feature not a flaw, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with COVID.
(10) Keep in mind the first group to admit what is to come were the banks, specifically Bank of America, because the Fed monetary policy is part of the cause.

There is a doubling inflationary impact from the Fed pumping money.

msn.com/en-us/money/ma…
(11) Notice how Bank of America says "for up to four years" of large inflation. Why *four years*?

That's because BoA knows four years of Trump policy deflation preceded the current state of Obama/Biden "re-inflation". Four years = Presidential term.
(12) If Biden policy to reverse Trump was executed at the same rollout scale of Trump's economic policy, it would take four years of rising prices. But Biden is reversing Trump policy in year one. Hence all the re-inflation comes in year one.
(13) You might remember, when Trump initiated tariffs against China (steel, alum, & more), Southeast Asia (product specific), Europe (steel, alum, & direct products), Canada (steel, alum, lumber, dairy), the financial pundits screamed that consumer prices were going to skyrocket.
(14) They didn’t. Consumer prices did not increase.

Trump knew they wouldn’t because essentially those trading partners responded in the exact same way the U.S. did decades ago when the import/export dynamic was reversed.
(15) Trump’s massive, and in some instances targeted, import tariffs against China, SE Asia, Canada and the EU not only did not increase prices, the prices of the goods in the U.S. actually dropped.

It sounds counter-intuitive, until you understand what happened. 👇
(16) To retain their position, China and the EU responded to U.S. tariffs by devaluing their currency as an offset to higher export prices. It started with China, because their economy is so dependent on exports to the U.S.
(17) China first started subsidizing the targeted sectors hit by Trump's tariffs. The CCP government of Beijing gave industries free electricity, gas, eliminated taxes due, etc etc. To help offset U.S. import tariffs.

They lowered the price of goods being exported.
(18) Then China went further. Beijing (total communist control over their banking system) devalued their currency to boost their avoidance of U.S. tariffs.

However, the currency devaluation had an unusual effect.
(19) The cost of all Chinese imports dropped, not just on the tariff goods. Imported stuff from China dropped in price at the same time the U.S. dollar was strong. This meant it took less dollars to import the same amount of Chinese goods; and those goods were at a lower price.
(2 0) Yes, the Beijing subsidies and currency devaluation worked in the way it dropped prices of Chinese goods and offset U.S. tariffs.

However, as a result, we were importing deflation…. the exact opposite of what the financial pundits claimed would happen.
(21) Trump's overall "trade war" with China meant the Chinese were lowering prices in the battle, and as a consequence U.S. importers had lower prices.

These lower prices were passed on to U.S. consumers. Stuff from China was cheaper. ie. "deflation"
(22) However, as the Chinese economy was under pressure, they stopped purchasing industrial products from the EU, that slowed the EU economy.

Germany, France and the EU were furious....
(23) President Trump didn't care...
(24) In response to a lessening of overall economic activity, a *pissed off* EU then followed the same approach as China.

[Remember, the EU was already facing pressure from the exit of the U.K. from the EU system. BREXIT !!]
(25) The EU didn't like Trump putting steel & aluminum tariffs on them, then walking away from the Paris treaty, then dismissing the Transatlantic trade deal (TTIP), and now creating a massive North American economic engine with Mexico via the USMCA.
(26) So the EU decided to take the same approach as China and fight back. The EU central banks started pumping money into their economy and offsetting with subsidies. Yes, they essentially devalued the euro.
(27) The outcome for U.S. importers from the EU was same as the outcome for U.S-China importers. We began importing deflation from the EU side.

A strong dollar, lower Euro value; that means cheaper goods from the EU, and ultimately more deflation.

They really hated orange man.
(28) In the middle of this there was a downside for U.S. exporters. With China and the EU devaluing their currency, and with a very strong domestic U.S. economy, the value of the dollar increased.
(29) This made purchases from the U.S. more expensive. U.S. multinational companies who relied on exports (lots of agricultural industries and raw materials) took a hit from higher export prices.

Trump would need to help farmers, specifically those dependent on exports....👇
(30) However,... and this part is really interesting,... it only made those multinationals more dependent on domestic U.S. sales for income. With less being exported, there was more product available in the U.S for domestic purchase.
(31) With more product remaining in the U.S. what happened? Yup, you guessed it.... this dynamic led to another predictable outcome, even lower prices for U.S. consumers.

Lots of happy middle-class Americans. Orange man notsobad for them.
(32) From 2017 through early 2020 U.S. consumer prices were dropping. We were in a rare place where deflation was happening. Combine lower prices with higher wages, and you can easily see the strength within the U.S. economy.
(33) For the rest of the world this seemed unfair, and indeed they cried foul – especially Canada.

Canada was apoplectic. Tariffs on their lumber, dairy, Steel and aluminum, and then Trump shut down the NAFTA loophole they were using. Trudeau furious... sent Freeland to fight.
(34) However, this was "America First" in action.

Middle-class Americans were benefiting from Trump's reversal of 40 years of economic policies like those that created the rust belt. Democrats knew they had a big problem. Trump's economic agenda was working.
(35) NOW.... REVERSE THIS… and you understand where we are with inflation.

JoeBama economic policies are exactly the reverse. The monetary policy that pumps money into into the U.S. economy via COVID bailouts and ever-increasing federal spending drops the value of the dollar.
(36) With the FED pumping money into the U.S. system, the dollar value plummets. At the same time, JoeBama dropped tariff enforcement to please the Wall Street multinational corporations and banks that funded his campaign.
(37) Now the value of the Chinese and EU currency increases. This means it costs more to import products, and that is the primary driver of current price increases in consumer goods.
(38) Simultaneously, a lower dollar means cheaper exports for the multinationals (Big AG and raw materials).

China, SE Asia and even the EU purchase U.S. raw materials at a lower price. That means less raw material in the U.S. which drives up prices for U.S. consumers.
(39) It is a perfect storm. Higher costs for imported goods and higher costs for domestic goods (food). Combine this dynamic with massive increases in energy costs from ideological policy, and that’s fuel on a fire of inflation.
(40) Annualized inflation is now estimated to be around 10+ percent, and it will likely keep increasing. This is terrible for wage earners in the U.S. who are now seeing wage growth incapable of keeping up with higher prices.
(41) Real wages are decreasing by the fastest rate in decades. We are now in a downward spiral where your paycheck buys less. As a result, consumer middle-class spending contracts.
(42) Gasoline costs more (+60%), food costs more (+10% at a minimum) and as a result, real wages drop; disposable income is lost. Ultimately this is the cause of a stagnant economy & inflation.
(43) None of this is caused by COVID-19. All of this is caused by current economic policy and current monetary policy sold under the guise of COVID-19.
(44) If spending continues, the dollar drops. As a result the inflationary period continues. It is a spiral that can only be stopped if policies are reversed…. and the only way to stop these insane policies is to get rid of Wall Street democrats & republicans constructing them.
(45) Be patient, be respectful, be kind and caring. Don’t look for trouble. But when the time comes to fight, drop the niceties and fight for your family with insane ferocity. Fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah’s Ark…. and damned if it ain’t starting to rain.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with TheLastRefuge

TheLastRefuge Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TheLastRefuge2

May 29
From the New York trade court ruling:

"...[...] in 1962, Congress delegated to the President the power to take action to adjust imports when the Secretary of Commerce finds that an “article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.” Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Pub. L. No. 87-794, § 232(b), 76 Stat. 872, 877 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1)(A)). This delegation is conditioned upon an investigation and findings by the Secretary of Commerce, and agreement by the President. See id. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires that the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) take action, which may include imposing tariffs, where “the rights of the United States under any trade agreement are being denied” or “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” 19 U.S.C. § 2411(a)(1)(A)–(B). The USTR may impose duties also where the USTR determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” Id. § 2411(b)(1). This power is conditioned on extensive procedural requirements including an investigation that culminates in an affirmative finding that another country imposed unfair trade barriers under § 2411(a)(1)(A) or (B) or § 2411(b), and a public notice and comment period. See id. § 2414(b)."...

This is one reason why the ruling can be overturned. The Sec 301/302 investigation was completed by the USTR, with extensive citation.

NY Court citation:

cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/file…

USTR Citation 400 pages:

ustr.gov/sites/default/…Image
The court literally ignored the USTR investigation, AND the Dept of Commerce review and investigation of the same based on the USTR published findings.

This ruling will not pass inspection by a higher court, and as to the motive of the 3-judge panel.... follow the $$$, there are trillions at stake.

This is a ruling to the benefit of the multinationals.Image
USTR Citations for lengthy review:

ustr.gov/issue-areas/pr…
Read 4 tweets
May 19
1. The original agreement between Clinton and Obama going back to 2008 was for Obama to take the nomination, the presidency and then eventually support Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election bid. 

Obama would be President. Obama would appoint Clinton to Secretary of State, Hillary would then use her office to build wealth for herself and her family, and then HRC would exit the Dept of State to begin her presidential run.

John Podesta would enter the Obama administration as Hillary left in 2013.  Podesta would look out for Hillary’s interests from his position inside the Obama White House.  The Clintons and Obamas never fully trusted each other. 

Barack Obama would put all the mechanisms into place that would transition his administration into Hillary Clintons’.  That was always the plan running in the background.Image
2. In 2015 Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had a check-in meeting; just touching base to firm up the goals and objectives as Hillary began her campaign launch.  Podesta left the White House to take up position inside the campaign, and Team Obama would maintain Clinton’s interests as planned without an insider.

All of President Obama’s appointments in after 2015, were essentially through the prism of assisting Hillary Clinton to win in 2016.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch (tarmac meeting), Deputy AG Sally Yates, Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and FBI Director James Comey were all part of that.

This is a key point missed by many. In the last two years of Obama, the cabinet and top-tier members of the administration would align their institutional interests to that of Hillary Clinton.

Technically Hillary had eyes and ears all over the White House at the time, and with Hillary Clinton being a foregone conclusion per the expectations of Washington DC, everyone would fall in line during the transition from Obama to Clinton. 

Again, this was the general plan.  Obama would show up in 2016 to campaign for Hillary and all would be seamless.Image
3. The FBI was aware of the plan for transition from Obama to Clinton, hence their role in eliminating the threat later presented by the Clinton, as Secretary of State, laptop scandal and the subsequent issues of classified information. 

Remember, Clinton’s motive as Secretary of State was to sell her position for material wealth; that’s why she used a personal email, maintained her own servers, and generally controlled how her activity could be monitored and tracked. [Also, she didn’t fully trust Obama]

The FBI activity was to support, defend and facilitate the Clinton effort. This is again a key to understanding "Russiagate"...

After March 2016 (Super Tuesday) it became obvious Donald Trump was going to win the Republican nomination. Trump would be Clinton's opponent.

Using access to the NSA database, the U.S. Govt., specifically "FBI Contractors", began doing political surveillance of Donald Trump's campaign. This intel was then sent to the Clinton team. Clinton would benefit from knowing the communication inside the Trump campaign. All of that intel was in the metadata captured by the NSA and searched by the FBI contractors.

All of this activity was political surveillance, using govt resources to feed the Clinton team the info.Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
May 17
1. OK lawyers, hear me out on my plan to address lower court 'nationwide injunctions' (or TROs) and tell me the flaw.

How about, before any lower court can issue a "nationwide" injunction, they have to get permission or approval from the SCOTUS Justice that presides over that region?Image
2. That singular justice decision (if approved) is then scheduled for a full SCOTUS review every-other-Friday.

[They can work out the communication structure by themselves, even using skype or similar]

Any nationwide injunction issued -hopefully fewer- would be approved by a SCOTUS justice, and then eventually reviewed by the full court.
3. Yes, that means some DEI justices (Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan), would likely approve regional injunctions. However, the ruling only applies to that region, not nationally.... Until full court approval.

Yes, in the issue of criminal illegal aliens, it essentially means that some regions would be unsafe as deportation processes would be stalled, while in the other regions the repatriation could continue without the TRO applying.Image
Read 4 tweets
May 1
1. Something really weird is going on here....

It didn't just surface with this oddity.

FOR THE RECORD: I have two decades of documented direct connection between Qatar and the CIA.
2. Here is another QATAR example, of just brutally odd statements that run counter to reality. This time by Steve Witkoff.

theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/03/2…
3. And it just continues... Note the 7-minute mark with Tucker Carlson, and his recent statements to Megyn Kelly.

Read 7 tweets
Apr 30
1. The absolute key to the first quarter GDP result is to remember that ‘imports‘ are a deduction in the economic equation of Gross Domestic Product.  The GDP is the valuation of all goods and services produced in the USA *minus* the value of imports.

cc: The insufferable @RandPaul

bea.gov/news/2025/gros…Image
2. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) releases the results of the first quarter GDP.  The overall economic growth seems low at 0.3% until you look at how U.S. companies responded in February and March to the tariff announcement.

Companies proactively purchased massive amounts of products in advance of the tariffs leading to an overall increase in imports of 41.3%.  Which results in a 5.3% deduction to GDP.  Every dollar of those imports is a deduction to the GDP equation, giving the false appearance of lower domestic production.Image
3. There was a massive surge in import goods purchases of 50.9% versus the prior period [Table 1, line 20].  That’s the largest periodic increase in import purchases I have ever seen.  Simultaneously, fixed asset investment in equipment for domestic production surged 22.5% [Table 1, line 11].

Put both of these metrics together and what you see are U.S. companies building consumer inventory from overseas (imports) while simultaneously preparing themselves to shift production into the USA. 

The massive import purchases are a bridge to cover the time needed to shift the manufacturing from overseas to the USA.  This is exactly what we want to see.
Read 8 tweets
Apr 18
1. I'm getting hit with a lot of newly awakened people wondering about AG Pam Bondi; wondering if the stuff from her old days surfacing is accurate.

I will try to encapsulate and provide receipts. The issues with Pam Bondi are much more serious than most understand.

Pam Bondi was the Florida Attorney General during the incident when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin.

“When I worked with Governor Scott to appoint State Attorney Angela Corey to the case involving Trayvon Martin, I did so with the full confidence that a swift and thorough investigation would be conducted."Image
2. On the evening of February 26, 2012, in Sanford Florida, George Zimmerman fired one shot into the heart of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, fatally killing him.

The Sanford Police lead investigator into the shooting was Chris Serino; the Police Chief was Bill Lee, and the local prosecutor was Norm Wolfinger.

Detective Chris Serino questioned and investigated George Zimmerman, who used a traditional “self-defense” justification for the shooting.  Eventually the case went to trial and the same “self-defense” justification was used in court.  Despite what you might have heard in the media, it was never a “stand your ground” defense.  It simply was not needed.

In addition to questioning Zimmerman, Serino documented two eye-witnesses to the shooting.  One woman in an apartment who saw the initial encounter between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, and another eye-witness, a man in an adjacent apartment who saw and partially recorded, the entire confrontation as it unfolded on the pathway approximately 20 feet from him.

The second witness called 911 and described in real time what he was seeing.  Trayvon was straddling George in an “MMA style” position and slamming Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk.  During the 911 recording you can hear Zimmerman calling out, “help me; somebody help me.” [NOTE: Both of those witnesses as well as the recording were later buried but came out at trial.]

After a thorough investigation, all of the statements by George Zimmerman were corroborated by the eye-witnesses, the forensic evidence, the audio recording, and all the physical evidence found at the scene.  Detective Chris Serino gave his investigative report to Police Chief Lee along with the recommendation that Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense was valid and justified.  Serino and Lee then consulted with prosecutor Norm Wolfinger who reviewed the evidence and agreed.Image
3. Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, was in a new relationship with his girlfriend Brandy Greene. Ms. Greene was a corrections officer.

Ms. Brandy Greene was eventually put into contact with a Florida “civil rights lawyer” named Benjamin Crump.  After some back-and-forth positioning and discussion, Crump decided to champion a wrongful death case for the Martin family against George Zimmerman, the City of Sanford and the Sanford Police Department.

Benjamin Crump hired a PR firm run by Ryan Julison to create media pressure.  Using his civil rights contacts, Crump requested support from groups like Al Sharpton, Dream Defenders, and allies in the DOJ.  That approach led to AG Eric Holder and eventually President Barack Obama.

Additionally, having worked previously (2007) with Florida prosecutor Pam Bondi in the Martin Lee Anderson case, Benjamin Crump called the now Florida Attorney General Bondi for support. 

The detective (Serino) sided with George Zimmerman.  The Police Chief, Bill Lee, agreed with Serino and the evidence.  The local Sanford prosecutor (Norm Wolfinger) refused to bring a case against Zimmerman based on the evidence.

…. Enter Florida AG Pam Bondi, who told Florida Governor Rick Scott a special prosecutor was needed for her friend Ben Crump.
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(