Look for another rate hike this month.

Quote:

---

U.S. INFLATION SURGES TO 3.7%, BEATING EXPECTATIONS

September CPI rose 0.6% MoM, matching forecasts, while annual inflation hit 3.7% vs. 3.6% expected.

Core CPI climbed 0.3% vs. 0.2% expected, with annual core inflation reaching 2.6% vs. 2.5% forecast.

Gasoline prices surged 9.1%, energy jumped 5.2%, and real earnings fell 0.5%, highlighting renewed pressure on consumers.

---

U.S. INFLATION SURGES TO 3.7%, BEATING EXPECTATIONS

September CPI rose 0.6% MoM, matching forecasts, while annual inflation hit 3.7% vs. 3.6% expected.

Core CPI climbed 0.3% vs. 0.2% expected, with annual core inflation reaching 2.6% vs. 2.5% forecast.

Gasoline prices surged…

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) October 14, 2026

flown-the-coop said:

---

Blackhorse83 said:

---

Nothing to be concerned about. It's transitory.

---

inflation driven by an active conflict in the ME and global diesel shortage are actually more transitory than the inflationary impacts of the Green Mew Deal. HTH.

---

Cats!

Logos Stick said:

---

Look for another rate hike this month.

Quote:

---

U.S. INFLATION SURGES TO 3.7%, BEATING EXPECTATIONS

September CPI rose 0.6% MoM, matching forecasts, while annual inflation hit 3.7% vs. 3.6% expected.

Core CPI climbed 0.3% vs. 0.2% expected, with annual core inflation reaching 2.6% vs. 2.5% forecast.

Gasoline prices surged 9.1%, energy jumped 5.2%, and real earnings fell 0.5%, highlighting renewed pressure on consumers.

---

U.S. INFLATION SURGES TO 3.7%, BEATING EXPECTATIONS

September CPI rose 0.6% MoM, matching forecasts, while annual inflation hit 3.7% vs. 3.6% expected.

Core CPI climbed 0.3% vs. 0.2% expected, with annual core inflation reaching 2.6% vs. 2.5% forecast.

Gasoline prices surged…

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) October 14, 2026

---

This could be a matter of 3.645 vs 3.655

"Surges"

BigRobSA said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Blackhorse83 said:

---

Nothing to be concerned about. It's transitory.

---

inflation driven by an active conflict in the ME and global diesel shortage are actually more transitory than the inflationary impacts of the Green Mew Deal. HTH.

---

Cats!

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Blackhorse83 said:

---

Nothing to be concerned about. It's transitory.

---

inflation driven by an active conflict in the ME and global diesel shortage are actually more transitory than the inflationary impacts of the Green Mew Deal. HTH.

---

Faulty sarcasm sensor?

No, I was actually pointing out that you could argue the actual terminology and how it's applied to two different things.

But to be honest rising gas prices due to supply disruptions is not inflation by definition and labeling any actual inflation transitory is sort of ******ed as well.

But since we are pissing all definitions, not sure much of it matters.

flown-the-coop said:

---

No, I was actually pointing out that you could argue the actual terminology and how it's applied to two different things.

But to be honest rising gas prices due to supply disruptions is not inflation by definition and labeling any actual inflation transitory is sort of ******ed as well.

But since we are pissing all definitions, not sure much of it matters.

---

"Inflation", while having an actual definition that we here on F16 know, means "****'s more expensive" to 99% of the country. It's very simple.

You're right, temporary price fluctuations aren't inflation/deflation but the hoipoloi gives zero actual ****s about the "Why?" when they're trying to pay for their Happy Meal with less money.

rocky the dog said:

---

I don't know if these figures are accurate, but anyway...

---

Aww man, take all the fun of bashing Trump right out of the thread, way to go

I see math isn't your strong point

KerrAg76 said:

---

I see math isn't your strong point

---

Nope, but neither is bizarro world, so.

How is it that the general consensus is that we need to use rates to adjust demand when price spikes are supply driven? This is a serious question, seems like nobody is even talking about that distinction.

When we had essentially free money, there was too much demand for a limited amount of goods which drove prices and it made sense to make money no longer "free" and tamp down demand.

What is going on now could not be any more different, but every talking head makes no effort to make any differentiation between 2022/2023 and now.

Edit: The run on longer dated treasuries obviously is influenced by inflation, but has a lot more to do with .gov deficit spending as well as the amount of corporate debt being issued for AI buildout, competing for a finite debt market. Not all "rates" are controlled by the fed, most people don't seem to understand this either.

TxAG#2011 said:

---

rocky the dog said:

---

I don't know if these figures are accurate, but anyway...

---

So what are the numbers after 21 months in office?

It's a completely misleading chart as it assumes there will be no inflation at all through the rest of the term. Hard to believe anyone could fall for this.

---

Exactly. We don't actually know at what point the data is using for Trump's final month (probably not this month since the data just came out today), but it's not even halfway through his presidency. You can at least assume that will double by the time he is done.

Quote:

---

How is it that the general consensus is that we need to use rates to adjust demand when price spikes are supply driven? This is a serious question, seems like nobody is even talking about that distinction.

---

Most of economic theory focus on multiple time phases. You don't just consider things like short term supply imbalances as discrete events. You think of the longer run effects like wage price spirals that allow price shocks from commodities that grow into the sort of entrenched inflationary cycle that bedeviled 60/70s Americans, Weimer Republic Germans and others.

There is lots of medicine for that on the fiscal and regulatory front, much of which seems impossible under the current Trump admin but were highly successful in the Carter and Reagan years. From the Central Bankers perspective, a fairly effective and crude technique is suppressing aggregate demand and that is achieved through higher borrowing costs for the consumer.

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

Building materials have skyrocketed due to tariffs. Everything about our inflation situation is such an own goal. Incredibly frustrating.

---

building materials have gone up for sure, but nowhere near the price they were during peak covid.

I was selling 7/16 OSB for $56 a sheet during covid. Now it's running about $10

rocky the dog said:

---

I don't know if these figures are accurate, but anyway...

---

Even with degrees in econ and decades working on wall street, I had to look up what CPI-U was.
I've never seen any economist reference that figure

Old McDonald said:

---

crazy that republicans won a trifecta on affordability and inflation concerns, only for trump to immediately do everything in his power to make things worse and insult his voters for even caring about those issues

---

Traditionally Republicans have done better on economic issues (their bread and butter if you will). But Trump is not a traditional Republican. I wouldn't say he even is one actually at least philosophically speaking.

It would make much more sense if there was a T next to his name instead of an R. I'll leave it to your imagination what that T would stand for (3 come to mind offhand).

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Trump torpedoed his entire economic agenda for a war he promised not to start.

---

Do you disagree with decimating Iran's conventional missile stockpile so that they could hold the ME hostage while they built nukes?

BusterAg said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Trump torpedoed his entire economic agenda for a war he promised not to start.

---

Do you disagree with decimating Iran's conventional missile stockpile so that they could hold the ME hostage while they built nukes?

---

Sure, but Trump said we DID that last year. Did he lie?