core PCE rises to 2.9%

8,010 Views | 125 Replies | Last: 6 mo ago by TTUArmy
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is the primary measure the Fed uses to gauge inflation.

April - 2.6%
May - 2.8%
June - 2.8%
July - 2.9%


MemphisAg1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But Trump says there's no inflation!
MemphisAg1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Caterpillar is certainly feeling it. Tariff impacts are higher than previously estimated.
Quote:

(Bloomberg) -- Just weeks after its last quarterly report, Caterpillar Inc. is warning investors it now expects tariffs to have an even greater impact on its business, costing it as much as $1.8 billion this year.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/caterpillar-sees-tariff-impact-1-000705992.html
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How are tariffs impacting Caterpillar when tariffs are nothing but an additional tax paid for by the customers?
Kansas Kid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

How are tariffs impacting Caterpillar when tariffs are nothing but an additional tax paid for by the customers?

Because in the export market, they can't pass on the cost because they are competing with companies like Komatsu that make their products overseas. This is the example where companies eat it and it can cost high paying manufacturing jobs. I'm sure they are trying to get waivers for imported items like steel but they haven't gotten them yet.

Over half of their US production is exported.
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So Tariffs are responsible for 0.3% increase and not government spending or interest rates. Got it.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So Caterpillar exposed itself to this by shifting its sourcing of materials, particularly steel and aluminum, and I am supposed to think this is bad?

That Caterpillar may have to cut some margins in order to source domestically, which is the point - particularly of the Section 232 tariffs, and this is... bad?

Seems to me like the Caterpillar article is a prime example of America winning here.
twk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

How are tariffs impacting Caterpillar when tariffs are nothing but an additional tax paid for by the customers?

Customers who spend more on products due to taxes buy fewer products because they have less money to spend.

Tariffs inflict pain. The question is, who bears the brunt of it? The free market advocates will point out (correctly) that, regardless of who fares worse, it ultimately makes the pie smaller for everyone. The tariff advocates are hoping that foreign producers are not in a position to pass the cost on to American consumers, and absorb most of the hit by accepting lower profit margins, and that American producers can benefit from an advantage over foreign competitors but that only happens in some cases. Tariffs probably hit components placed in US assembled products as much or more as foreign products sold direct to consumers in the US.

The other factor here is that, if we would ever find the courage to rein in spending, then tariffs might present an opportunity for us to lower our deficit spending because, like any tax increase is designed to do, they generate revenue for the Treasury. And, as much as no one wants to raise taxes, there is no indicating that the US electorate has the will to endure enough pain in the form of reduced government spending to solve the problem without raising taxes.
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
doubledog said:

So Tariffs are responsible for 0.3% increase and not government spending or interest rates. Got it.


I don't care what the cause is. Rates should not be lowered right now, but I expect they will do it anyway because of Trump's tantrums.
Kansas Kid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

So Caterpillar exposed itself to this by shifting its sourcing of materials, particularly steel and aluminum, and I am supposed to think this is bad?

That Caterpillar may have to cut come margins in order to source domestically, which is the point - particularly of the Section 232 tariffs, and this is... bad?

Seems to me like the Caterpillar article is a prime example of America winning here.

Even if they source in the US, they pay higher prices. Us prodcuers increase their price to match the import alternatives. Put simply, if you were the CEO of Cleveland Cliffs and the import price with tariffs goes from $4000 to $5000 after a 25% tariff increase, why wouldn't you increase your price from $4000 to just under $5000 (or up to $5000).
J. Walter Weatherman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
John Deere seeing similar issues. Almost as if corporate tax increases are always a bad idea.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wake-trump-tariffs-john-deere-160303099.html

Quote:

John Deere has been hit hard by President Donald Trump's tariffs. The farm equipment manufacturer and industry bellwether just announced mass layoffs affecting more than 200 workers at three Midwestern plants.

The company is set to fire 115 employees at a facility in East Moline, Illinois, later this month, according to the Des Moines Register. Next month, 52 workers at a facility in Moline, Illinois, and 71 employees at a facility in Waterloo, Iowa, will also reportedly be terminated.

"As stated on our most recent earnings call, the struggling ag economy continues to impact orders for John Deere equipment," said the company in a statement, per Illinois Public Media. "This is a challenging time for many farmers, growers and producers, and directly impacts our business in the near term."


Quote:

Estimating that tariffs have already cost the company $300 million this year, Beal forecast a full-year tariff impact of nearly $600 million.

Max Stonetrail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
2025 - Trump's tariffs causing massive inflation - PCE up TENTHS of a percent.

2021-2022 - The Fed injecting TRILLIONS into the economy isn't causing inflation - PCE only up 10+%
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kansas Kid said:

flown-the-coop said:

So Caterpillar exposed itself to this by shifting its sourcing of materials, particularly steel and aluminum, and I am supposed to think this is bad?

That Caterpillar may have to cut come margins in order to source domestically, which is the point - particularly of the Section 232 tariffs, and this is... bad?

Seems to me like the Caterpillar article is a prime example of America winning here.

Even if they source in the US, they pay higher prices. Us prodcuers increase their price to match the import alternatives. Put simply, if you were the CEO of Cleveland Cliffs and the import price with tariffs goes from $4000 to $5000 after a 25% tariff increase, why wouldn't you increase your price from $4000 to just under $5000 (or up to $5000).

Or Cleveland Cliffs can operate like a real business and increase their pricing in order to generate high profits and invest in the US operations whilst still undercutting the tariffed imports.

You would have to be a short-term oriented dip**** Harvard MBA to behave in the manner you Cleveland Cliffs hypothetical is laid out.
MemphisAg1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Logos Stick said:

doubledog said:

So Tariffs are responsible for 0.3% increase and not government spending or interest rates. Got it.


I don't care what the cause is. Rates should not be lowered right now, but I expect they will do it anyway because of Trump's tantrums.

There is no credible case for lowering rates right now with core inflation essentially at 3% and GDP at 3.3%.

The economy is doing just fine, and the unemployment rate is low.

Trump's political interference in the Fed is going to come back to bite him. Short term rates are moving down due to his political pressure but long term rates are moving up due to loss of confidence in Fed independence and a fear the Fed won't keep inflation in check. Longer term rates affect things like housing and long term investment loans, big drivers for economic activity.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If this is the amount of inflation that it takes to balance the budget, I am all for it!
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J. Walter Weatherman said:

John Deere seeing similar issues. Almost as if corporate tax increases are always a bad idea.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wake-trump-tariffs-john-deere-160303099.html

Quote:

John Deere has been hit hard by President Donald Trump's tariffs. The farm equipment manufacturer and industry bellwether just announced mass layoffs affecting more than 200 workers at three Midwestern plants.

The company is set to fire 115 employees at a facility in East Moline, Illinois, later this month, according to the Des Moines Register. Next month, 52 workers at a facility in Moline, Illinois, and 71 employees at a facility in Waterloo, Iowa, will also reportedly be terminated.

"As stated on our most recent earnings call, the struggling ag economy continues to impact orders for John Deere equipment," said the company in a statement, per Illinois Public Media. "This is a challenging time for many farmers, growers and producers, and directly impacts our business in the near term."


Quote:

Estimating that tariffs have already cost the company $300 million this year, Beal forecast a full-year tariff impact of nearly $600 million.



So tariffs are causing the ag economy to struggle? Interesting. Seems to me trade deals opening up markets may offset some of this, but I do not see the commentary on that.

And this cannot be analyzed in a vacuum. Roughly have of Deere sales are financed and likely much more than that when you consider cash buyers are likely big fleet buyers who turnaround and lease - again, suffering from high interest rates.
tysker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusterAg said:

If this is the amount of inflation that it takes to balance the budget, I am all for it!

Ya we're almost there guys; just this close to balancing the budget
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MemphisAg1 said:

Logos Stick said:

doubledog said:

So Tariffs are responsible for 0.3% increase and not government spending or interest rates. Got it.


I don't care what the cause is. Rates should not be lowered right now, but I expect they will do it anyway because of Trump's tantrums.

There is no credible case for lowering rates right now with core inflation essentially at 3% and GDP at 3.3%.

The economy is doing just fine, and the unemployment rate is low.

Trump's political interference in the Fed is going to come back to bite him. Short term rates are moving down due to his political pressure but long term rates are moving up due to loss of confidence in Fed independence and a fear the Fed won't keep inflation in check. Longer term rates affect things like housing and long term investment loans, big drivers for economic activity.

Well hopefully the courts tell him he has to back off and let them handle the staffing at the Fed.

Surely Lisa Cook has a firm handle on tariffs, interest rates and the global economy.

Do you have a source for this rates are moving up due to lack of confidence in Fed independence?
Kansas Kid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Kansas Kid said:

flown-the-coop said:

So Caterpillar exposed itself to this by shifting its sourcing of materials, particularly steel and aluminum, and I am supposed to think this is bad?

That Caterpillar may have to cut come margins in order to source domestically, which is the point - particularly of the Section 232 tariffs, and this is... bad?

Seems to me like the Caterpillar article is a prime example of America winning here.

Even if they source in the US, they pay higher prices. Us prodcuers increase their price to match the import alternatives. Put simply, if you were the CEO of Cleveland Cliffs and the import price with tariffs goes from $4000 to $5000 after a 25% tariff increase, why wouldn't you increase your price from $4000 to just under $5000 (or up to $5000).

Or Cleveland Cliffs can operate like a real business and increase their pricing in order to generate high profits and invest in the US operations whilst still undercutting the tariffed imports.

You would have to be a short-term oriented dip**** Harvard MBA to behave in the manner you Cleveland Cliffs hypothetical is laid out.

In my scenario, they do undercut the import but it would be by only 1-3%. Meanwhile, Caterpillar loses sales which ultimately results them in moving manufacturing for the export market to other countries and we lose those jobs. Even if Cleveland expands, they add 1-2 jobs for 50-100 jobs lost in manufacturing because it takes a lot more hours of labor to convert steel into finished products than it does to make that steel.

I get it, you think tariffs are only good because Trump tells you so but the real world isn't that clean.
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

MemphisAg1 said:

Logos Stick said:

doubledog said:

So Tariffs are responsible for 0.3% increase and not government spending or interest rates. Got it.


I don't care what the cause is. Rates should not be lowered right now, but I expect they will do it anyway because of Trump's tantrums.

There is no credible case for lowering rates right now with core inflation essentially at 3% and GDP at 3.3%.

The economy is doing just fine, and the unemployment rate is low.

Trump's political interference in the Fed is going to come back to bite him. Short term rates are moving down due to his political pressure but long term rates are moving up due to loss of confidence in Fed independence and a fear the Fed won't keep inflation in check. Longer term rates affect things like housing and long term investment loans, big drivers for economic activity.

Well hopefully the courts tell him he has to back off and let them handle the staffing at the Fed.

Surely Lisa Cook has a firm handle on tariffs, interest rates and the global economy.

Do you have a source for this rates are moving up due to lack of confidence in Fed independence?


The Lisa Cook situation and monetary policy are mutually exclusive.
Max Stonetrail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MemphisAg1 said:

Logos Stick said:

doubledog said:

So Tariffs are responsible for 0.3% increase and not government spending or interest rates. Got it.


I don't care what the cause is. Rates should not be lowered right now, but I expect they will do it anyway because of Trump's tantrums.

There is no credible case for lowering rates right now with core inflation essentially at 3% and GDP at 3.3%.

The economy is doing just fine, and the unemployment rate is low.

Trump's political interference in the Fed is going to come back to bite him. Short term rates are moving down due to his political pressure but long term rates are moving up due to loss of confidence in Fed independence and a fear the Fed won't keep inflation in check. Longer term rates affect things like housing and long term investment loans, big drivers for economic activity.

FYI - take out Trump's evil tariffs and GDP is 2.3%.

The economy is doing fine current day because goverment spending has gone from 4.4T in 2019 to 6.8T in 2024.

The real solution is to lower rates AND government spending. The private spending that will result will offset the goverment spending decline and keep the economy and unemployment at current good numbers.

Prosperdick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kansas Kid said:

flown-the-coop said:

So Caterpillar exposed itself to this by shifting its sourcing of materials, particularly steel and aluminum, and I am supposed to think this is bad?

That Caterpillar may have to cut come margins in order to source domestically, which is the point - particularly of the Section 232 tariffs, and this is... bad?

Seems to me like the Caterpillar article is a prime example of America winning here.

Even if they source in the US, they pay higher prices. Us prodcuers increase their price to match the import alternatives. Put simply, if you were the CEO of Cleveland Cliffs and the import price with tariffs goes from $4000 to $5000 after a 25% tariff increase, why wouldn't you increase your price from $4000 to just under $5000 (or up to $5000).

Put simply, if you were the CEO of Cleveland Cliffs your market share just increased because you're able to significantly undercut your competition by selling your product at $4,500, still maintain a healthy profit AND start to hire more employees to handle the increased workload.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kansas Kid said:

In my scenario, they do undercut the import but it would be by only 1-3%. Meanwhile, Caterpillar loses sales which ultimately results them in moving manufacturing for the export market to other countries and we lose those jobs. Even if Cleveland expands, they add 1-2 jobs for 50-100 jobs lost in manufacturing because it takes a lot more hours of labor to convert steel into finished products than it does to make that steel.

I get it, you think tariffs are only good because Trump tells you so but the real world isn't that clean.

Same can be said by your biased, poorly envisioned example that ignores many aspects of how people actually run businesses (I know, I happen to have been very good at this part).

You have so many assumptions built in to that scenario that magically Cleveland Cliffs is going to maximize short term profits due to tariffs whilst pissing away a once in a lifetime opportunity to use the tariffs to instead invest domestically and be a partner with Caterpillar and its other customers.

Or they may just take the Orange Man Bad approach and ruin their company and one of its key customers.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bingo.
MemphisAg1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Do you have a source for this rates are moving up due to lack of confidence in Fed independence?

It's been all over the internet in a variety of sources. Here's one I saw this morning.

Quote:

  • A "twist steepener" in the bond market is widening the gap between short- and long-term U.S. Treasury yields. This dynamic is dragging the dollar lower, exacerbated by President Trump's political interference in the Fed, weak growth, and inflation risks, according to analysts at Convera. The dollar is down 9.69% on the DXY index year-to-date.


https://fortune.com/2025/08/29/trump-fed-twist-steepener-bonds-dollar/
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Logos Stick said:

flown-the-coop said:

Well hopefully the courts tell him he has to back off and let them handle the staffing at the Fed.

Surely Lisa Cook has a firm handle on tariffs, interest rates and the global economy.

Do you have a source for this rates are moving up due to lack of confidence in Fed independence?


The Lisa Cook situation and monetary policy are mutually exclusive.

So she is terminated. Good. She was a terrible DEI hire.

Hopefully the other political hacks and incompetents can be terminated as well.

NO ONE in the known UNIVERSE is basing their decisions about how "independent" they think our Federal Reserve Board of Governors is. That is patently funny.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
An article that uses this picture is not going to be thoughtful nor independent.

Max Stonetrail
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MemphisAg1 said:

flown-the-coop said:

Do you have a source for this rates are moving up due to lack of confidence in Fed independence?

It's been all over the internet in a variety of sources. Here's one I saw this morning.

Quote:

  • A "twist steepener" in the bond market is widening the gap between short- and long-term U.S. Treasury yields. This dynamic is dragging the dollar lower, exacerbated by President Trump's political interference in the Fed, weak growth, and inflation risks, according to analysts at Convera. The dollar is down 9.69% on the DXY index year-to-date.


https://fortune.com/2025/08/29/trump-fed-twist-steepener-bonds-dollar/

Why are they citing YTD numbers as support for news and events that are what, 5 business days old?
AggieVictor10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why not?
Kansas Kid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Kansas Kid said:

In my scenario, they do undercut the import but it would be by only 1-3%. Meanwhile, Caterpillar loses sales which ultimately results them in moving manufacturing for the export market to other countries and we lose those jobs. Even if Cleveland expands, they add 1-2 jobs for 50-100 jobs lost in manufacturing because it takes a lot more hours of labor to convert steel into finished products than it does to make that steel.

I get it, you think tariffs are only good because Trump tells you so but the real world isn't that clean.

Same can be said by your biased, poorly envisioned example that ignores many aspects of how people actually run businesses (I know, I happen to have been very good at this part).

You have so many assumptions built in to that scenario that magically Cleveland Cliffs is going to maximize short term profits due to tariffs whilst pissing away a once in a lifetime opportunity to use the tariffs to instead invest domestically and be a partner with Caterpillar and its other customers.

Or they may just take the Orange Man Bad approach and ruin their company and one of its key customers.

Let's go look at the real data and see whose position is playing out in the market today.
"As of August 2025, the divergence between U.S. domestic steel prices and global benchmarks has reached historic proportions. U.S. hot-rolled coil steel averages $850-900 per ton, while Chinese steel trades at just $410 per ton, creating a staggering 107% price premium for American steel. European steel prices settle in the middle at $635 per ton, still 34% below U.S. levels, while world export prices average $466 per ton."

PS. This can also impact US manufacturers in the domestic market depending on tariff rates for the countries of the import manufacturers.

So again, how can Caterpillar or any other exporter from competing in the export market if steel is a major input?

https://steelindustry.news/world-steel-pricing-vs-u-s-domestic-steel-pricing-market-dynamics-in-the-era-of-50-tariffs/#:~:text=This%20pricing%20disparity%20represents%20a,allows%20for%20more%20responsive%20pricing.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And Vessey, the Brit from Convera who brings together several factors but then blames Trump, appears exactly as you would expect.

Quote:

"Political interference is compounding the issue, with Trump's continued testing of the Fed's independence undermining investor confidence in the central bank's autonomy," he said. "At the core is a rare convergence of structural shocks. Tariffs are dampening consumer and corporate demand, dragging on GDP. Simultaneously, immigration constraints are tightening labour supply, curbing potential output and stoking wage pressures. These twin shocks slow growth without a clear inflation offset."

Compounding =/= Causing

He then brings in avocado pickers / arse wipers and blames rising wages.

Excellent analysis.

tysker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prosperdick said:

Kansas Kid said:

flown-the-coop said:

So Caterpillar exposed itself to this by shifting its sourcing of materials, particularly steel and aluminum, and I am supposed to think this is bad?

That Caterpillar may have to cut come margins in order to source domestically, which is the point - particularly of the Section 232 tariffs, and this is... bad?

Seems to me like the Caterpillar article is a prime example of America winning here.

Even if they source in the US, they pay higher prices. Us prodcuers increase their price to match the import alternatives. Put simply, if you were the CEO of Cleveland Cliffs and the import price with tariffs goes from $4000 to $5000 after a 25% tariff increase, why wouldn't you increase your price from $4000 to just under $5000 (or up to $5000).

Put simply, if you were the CEO of Cleveland Cliffs your market share just increased because you're able to significantly undercut your competition by selling your product at $4,500, still maintain a healthy profit AND start to hire more employees to handle the increased workload.

You assume the demand for the product stays the same and that the other competitors are unable to use advances in technology to increase production at a lower cost.
Sims
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Because if you shared a 5D number it's higher and not lower.

You're taking an infinitely complicated system, including components that couldn't care less about Fed governer, and attributing a single unrelated causal factor to be the driving force of an entire ecosphere of monetary issues.

I could have just as easily written an article that said, "Since starting his campaign to hold brazenly disengenous Fed official Lisa Cook accountable for her fraudulent actions, President Trump has seen the USD appreciate against other Sovereign currencies over 25 basis points confirming the economy's desire to see Fed officals held to account for their behavior that runs contrary to their mandate."
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Logos Stick said:

doubledog said:

So Tariffs are responsible for 0.3% increase and not government spending or interest rates. Got it.


I don't care what the cause is. Rates should not be lowered right now, but I expect they will do it anyway because of Trump's tantrums.

Let's not forget the Democrats obstructions and over spending.
Kansas Kid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Prosperdick said:

Kansas Kid said:

flown-the-coop said:

So Caterpillar exposed itself to this by shifting its sourcing of materials, particularly steel and aluminum, and I am supposed to think this is bad?

That Caterpillar may have to cut come margins in order to source domestically, which is the point - particularly of the Section 232 tariffs, and this is... bad?

Seems to me like the Caterpillar article is a prime example of America winning here.

Even if they source in the US, they pay higher prices. Us prodcuers increase their price to match the import alternatives. Put simply, if you were the CEO of Cleveland Cliffs and the import price with tariffs goes from $4000 to $5000 after a 25% tariff increase, why wouldn't you increase your price from $4000 to just under $5000 (or up to $5000).

Put simply, if you were the CEO of Cleveland Cliffs your market share just increased because you're able to significantly undercut your competition by selling your product at $4,500, still maintain a healthy profit AND start to hire more employees to handle the increased workload.

They were already essentially sold out so how are they going to increase share? You can say expand but the problems is these tariffs are by executive order so they are subject to change at a whim or change in who is President. They are investing based on 10-20 years of operations. There is also the challenge of getting through the regulations.

PS. Why would they need to sell for $4,500 when the alternative is $5,000. This is a commodity and buyers will switch for a lot smaller discount than 10%.
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.