Fear The Chorizo

Hell, gas tanks only get ~350 miles. EV's aren't far behind that. An ICE vehicle's range is entirely dependent on the size of its gas tank and not on a battery that takes much longer to recharge in order to regain its full travel range - throw a pair of jerry cans in the back of your pickup and suddenly that range doubles. Plus if you drive a car 349 miles and show up at a gas station on fumes, 5 minutes later you can completely reset its range to 350 miles after filling up. An EV simply can't and won't ever be able to offer that level of convenience no matter how many charging stations pop up - particularly in rural areas that often require vehicles with significant towing or storage capacity, or for people living in urban areas that don't have the means or real estate room to have their own secure charging station. However, that's not saying EVs aren't a good option for anybody to have. EVs can supplement the overall auto fleet in the US and serve that sought after niche as a suburban around-town errand runner for those who can afford its higher upfront cost along with having reliable and private charging capabilities. That's maybe 15% of the population in the US, but it's a far lower percentage across the rest of the world. I think EVs make up roughly 5% of the US personal vehicle fleet at present, so 15% would be tripling it existing market share in this country - and I think that's a realistic ceiling for this type of technology. EVs are simply not the answer to replacing the ICE on a worldwide scale, particularly if people are looking for ways to improve the environment. One exception is Norway (population a bit smaller than WI). To dramatically increase their country's use of EVs, Norway has taxed the crap out of any ICE cars (sales, gas, maintenance, basically everything gets taxed at very high levels) while foregoing any taxes on EV sales/maintenance/charging cost as a way to make them cost competitive and disincentivize ICE cars - at least up until recently as they've had to scrap the EV sales tax exemption because they've blown too big a hole in their fiscal budget. The primary funding mechanism that has made this even sort of a reality in Norway is, of course, the enormous amount of money they collect in royalties from oil exports - which is a huge part of their economy and the only reason they're among the wealthiest nations on a GDP per capita basis. So Norway can say they're very clean domestically in terms of vehicle emissions - but all the oil that gets pumped out of their seafloor and shipped elsewhere to be guzzled that actually funds this endeavor still winds up churning out CO2 on the same planet Norway is on.

When Tesla is pleading for people in Texas to only charge their EVs at night and not during peak demand, it's evidence that if people charge whenever they'd prefer to do on their own that the additional strain on the grid from charging EVs even at the limited % they are part of the overall auto fleet is a problem. Dramatically increasing the % of EVs on the road would only make this much worse. Part of that reason is the existing grid and power supply is strained to its limits at present, too. That's not just in the US, it's happening in many developed countries as they've become steadily more reliant on renewables instead of excess generating capacity from nuclear/fossil fuels to support antiquated peak demand estimates that growing populations are easily able to exceed. And there's still a significant limitation with EVs on how far you can actually drive them before needing to take a significant chunk of time to recharge the battery, not to mention being held hostage to traveling where charging stations are available and actually functioning properly. To me the next step would be for families/households in population centers who have multi-vehicle households to have an EV primarily for in-town local driving and keep an ICE vehicle for more flexibility with longer drives - particularly when not planning to return home to your garage charging station at night to take advantage of that coal-fired trickle charge during bedtime.

Yes, but that decline doesn't really mean much - going from 9+% in June year over year to say 7% in July year over year still means stuff costs a ton more a full year after inflation started spiking. Changes from the interest rate hikes won't be seen in inflation numbers for another few months, at which time the rest of the economy will be firmly entrenched in a progressively worse recession (we're already in a recession that will get worse). The big rate hikes coming now are kind of like a fire department showing up to a kitchen fire and then proceeding to wait until the entire house is a raging inferno before starting to run the hose to the nearest hydrant, then proceed to extinguish the fire on a destroyed house and not turn the water off until they've flooded the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. There should never have been a 2021 round of COVID stimulus printed out (frankly there probably shouldn't have been any in 2020 either but gov't policy panicked). And as soon as that bill was passed the Fed should have started significant rate hikes a full year ago to offset what they knew was coming. Gas/fuel prices are the biggest inflation driver, since everything sold in a store at one point or another got there after being transported by something running on fuel. Gas prices will drop a bit due to reducing demand as summer moves to fall (prices always go down during this stretch), but now the problem is the US needs to stop drawing from its strategic reserves and actually try to replenish them when the cost of oil is near a record high. That will curtail supply and prevent gas prices from dropping faster than they otherwise would have - so we'll get a fresh round of blaming oil companies raking in huge profits. Meanwhile, US refining capability is basically running at max capacity and there are terrible permitting/financing disincentives for those companies to even try to use profits for building new refineries, expanding existing ones, or increasing drilling/production to try and get more in line with demand and get prices at the pump to a reasonable level for consumers. The other option is to make everyone buy electric cars they can't afford to destroy the environment much faster by mining the heavy metals needed to produce batteries, and then subsequently blow out the existing electrical grid. It's going great...

When was that CBO estimate made and what were the actual revenue streams? The article you linked is dated in early February 2019, before increased revenue streams from the economic growth the tax cuts created were actually realized. Throw the intentional recession COVID lockdown policies created and really the first year's revenue that can be looked at to see what impact those tax cuts had on the broader economy was 2021....and thus far in 2022 the reduced deficit in large part is due to those cuts enacted as well whether people will admit to it or not. Those cuts haven't been removed, right? So they are still impacting government revenue streams. Deficits in 2020 and 2021 were incredibly influenced by the trillions of dollars printed out in COVID relief - take those huge amounts off the government's books for 2020 and 2021 and those years' deficits would likely resemble what we are seeing so far in 2022. The problem with CBO scoring is that it is forced to use current economic conditions extrapolated over 10 years or however long they project and don't have a good way to adjust that scoring for either improved or diminished economic growth that makes those projections worthless after a few years.

The key takeaway for me in that article is its headline...I get why states value shifting people from welfare rolls they have a bigger part in funding to federal disability - but the fact there are jobs whose role is strictly to move people from one unit of government's dole to another just to achieve some cost savings on their own books speaks to how additional layers of bureaucracy across government lead to programs costing more tax dollars $ to deliver the same services, and that bureaucracy just fails to see the forest through the trees. Money could actually be saved and tax revenues for these programs at both the state and federal levels could increase if there was more emphasis/funding for programs whose goal is to get people who can work back to work by providing necessary training/offering relocation assistance/etc.

"trickle down" is a phrase opponents of lower taxes came up with to villify policies that promote capital investment as a way of creating more economic opportunities for people who instead want increased government spending as a way of propping up the ground floor. And no, there isn't a need to increase both taxes and slash spending due to the size of the national debt - they key is to rein in the deficit to stop adding to the debt by freezing or finding ways to decrease spending for an extended period of time so revenue from existing tax policy starts making that debt look smaller in the long run. The last round of tax cuts enacted by orange man bad were having a positive impact on increasing government revenues because the economy was thriving and expanding in 2019....then revenues actually spiked significantly in 2021 in large part to corporate tax revenues following that 2017 tax cut. However, we unfortunately didn't see the deficit/debt benefit from those increasing revenues because government COVID policies from both political parties blew it up by cratering business growth that was driving the increased tax revenue and also printing out trillions more in debt with no way to pay for it.

Exactly, and because of that a smaller percentage of the US is actually in the workforce and we've been skirting around a tipping point due to prolonged economic expansion for the past 10ish years - small decreases in the labor rate percentage are significant on a macro scale when the programs supported by payroll wage garnishments are already running at a loss. There needs to be a marked increase in labor participation of working-age adults in order to offset the group of baby boomers entering into retirement, otherwise the gov't programs (social security, medicaid/medicare, etc) don't have enough wage earners to sustain them and the whole thing implodes on itself. That and substantial reform of these programs that likely push back the age when people can start collecting from them and limiting the amount they receive. People on fixed incomes are getting crushed right now and it won't get better for them for a substantial amount of time. COVID forced alot of two parent working households back to 1 parent working households because the extended school shutdowns and forced restriction on activities, and to their credit many families realized the benefits of having one parent at home running the show outweighed the benefits of two wage earners chasing their tails running errands and shuttling kids between day cares/schools/after school activities. It's going to take awhile to unwind things economically to reach a new and sustaintable economic normal, and inflationary pressures are just amplifying the pain while we and the rest of the world start working through it. This turmoil is all happening as jobs are still plentiful and there are still a good number of working age people who aren't choosing to fill those jobs - whether that be due to a population wide skills gap or unwillingness to perform various tasks is beside the point. When the economy does start contracting jobs and people who are currently employed find themselves out of work, there's going to be much more economic desperation than their already is - even in the richest country on earth.

The US still drives the global economy, so when it sucks here it more or less is going to suck everywhere else with a few exceptions that for one reason or another can isolate themselves, and probably sucks even more in countries that don't produce their own energy...I believe California itself has a much higher GDP than the UK.

Oil prices also started falling in October of last year, so there was reason to believe that inflation would subside. Then Russia. In general, oil prices always slide in the fall of the year after peak demand most summers - so that really isn't a surprise or should have been viewed as a sign that inflation would actually not be a problem after printing trillions of dollars for the heck of it. IMO there shouldn't have been a stimulus in either 2021 or the ones they doled out in 2020 - we are reaping the after effects of all of that right now. The roadblocks set up for banks and other financial institutions to invest in expanded oil exploration and oil distribution infrastructure projects (pipelines/refining capacity, etc) coupled with essentially throwing a proverbial wet blanket on any and all new leases/drilling permits has been far more destructive to the global oil market than Russia invading Ukraine. It's not nearly as simple as yelling at oil companies to "pump faster or pump more". The brief unemployment rate increase a little more than a year ago was a product of the government finally pointing to a stop on the extended unemployment benefits and a glut of workers actually trying to rejoin the workforce. The US labor force still isn't close to where it was pre COVID in terms of the number of people actually working - despite that really low unemployment rate...it's because a smaller percentage of the country is actually in the workforce.

Things are going to get worse but at least we're being somewhat proactive this time which is unusual for the government. The last time the Fed jacked up rates 75 basis points was 1994, when Greenspan was roundly criticized by government officials for suppressing economic expansion. At the time, I think inflation was around 2.5-3.5%, and Greenspan indicated he initiated the rate hike to prevent what appeared to be a rebounding economy from overheating. The overall rate increases by Greenspan were relatively short-lived (about a year) and the Fed was able to keep inflation in check even after lowering the rates. Since May 2021, the monthly inflation rate has progressively increased from 5.0% in May 2021 to 8.6% in May 2022, with little sign of dramatically dropping in the coming months. This time around, what the Fed is doing is hardly proactive, and they are going to be forced to be punitively reactive to try put a stopper on the inflation spigot they've let run largely uncontrolled for more than a year. As for student loan repayments, my final loan payment will be made next billing cycle roughly 19 years after I graduated...so that definitely means that huge swaths of student loan debt are going to be forgiven in next 2-3 months.

It's important to continue investing/contributing to retirement accounts consistently through peaks and valleys of the market - eventually it does rebound and even if your account is losing money during a downturn, you're at least buying shares at discounted prices that will realize bigger gains as the market rebounds at some point. I shifted a pretty large chunk of my retirement account to essentially a money market stable value fund earlier this year when it was apparent both the bond and stock markets were going to suck for an extended period of time. Granted that fund is getting dinged by inflation like everything else, but its dollar value hasn't changed and at least it didn't get further crushed by being in a stock or bond market diving firmly into bear territory. I'm not going to try and be perfect predicting the true bottom and best time to shift that part of my portfolio back into stock funds, but the way things are shaping up economically I don't have an immediate sense of urgency to pull the trigger, either.

Reminder that q1 gdp was already negative, so by the end of June we are probably already in a recession by its definition of 2 straight quarters of declining activity. Also, the monthly inflation rates are based on year over year comparisons of each month - since inflation really started ramping up after the last covid stimulus package printed a few trillion out of thin air again last summer, the inflation numbers will probably start dropping into the 3-4% range as early as when July gets reported simply because they have nowhere to go but down when they've been setting fresh 40 year highs...but even that is too much for this economy.

Wages aren't up anywhere close to actual inflation. I'd much rather get a 3% wage increase when the CPI/inflation is 2-4% compared to a 6% raise when inflation is 8-10%. Give it a month or two - there will still be "now hiring" signs left in the doors of businesses that close down. Most of those positions companies are looking to hire are the result of staff switching jobs and leaving openings, not due to economic expansion as we reached a post-pandemic equilibrium. Tech industries are already starting to announce layoffs. The labor participation rate remains on the low side historically, too. Not too many of us have been around long enough to experience a US economy that truly is experiencing stagflation, but unfortunately I think we're all about to find out how much it sucks.

Bad news: Inflation, gas prices That list is about to get a whole heckuva lot longer - they basically have to force a bad recession in order to get a handle on inflationary/supply chain and energy pressures coupled with deficit spending and dramatic low level wage hikes conducted over the past few years. Home sales are about to come to a screeching halt due to rising mortgage rates and while I don't see home values plummeting like 2009-2011 because housing market isn't going to be the reason for the incoming recession, removing that economic contribution is going to hurt many industries. Consumers are indeed still spending but are needing to burn through savings or even worse use run up credit card debt to cover basic needs - discretionary spending will take a big hit later this year, too. I saw that the average family is having to pay roughly $1,000 more per month to cover basic living expenses (gas, utilities, food, shelter) now than they were at the start of 2021....the exact figure varies from state to state, but it's just not sustainable to shift that much money to things without sacrificing/limiting other discretionary spending. The entertainment/restaurant industry is going to get hammered again once the initial pent up pandemic-related demand wears off this summer with trips that were pushed back the last few years. Specific to what the market will wind up doing, I think it's going to get worse before it gets better, because there really isn't a safe haven to turn to when you have high inflation, stumbling corporate profits, and yet to be resolved supply chain/energy production issues. In short, I feel very fortunate to be nowhere near retirement age right now...and even more fortunate to not already be on a fixed income retirement like my parents.

If GB wants to target a WR in round 2, they have plenty of ammo to package one of their 2nds + a mid/late round pick to move up and get their guy at the start of another run at that position. Without even looking at who's left on the board and current draft order for round 2, I'd expect the Packers to go receiver and O-line/TE with their two 2nds and then BPA left on their board with their 3rd round pick - assuming none are used as part of a trade. However, there are some very intriguing edge/OLB options that will likely be available at 53 if the Packers have them rated super high and just want to troll Twitter with another defensive front 7 pick.

Any time a draft goes on a run of players at a certain position in Round 1, you don't want to be on the end of that big run and wind up reaching - the better option is to identify what that run opens up in terms of talent at other positions falling into your lap. That's exactly what the Packers did last night. It wouldn't surprise me if GB winds up signing for a veteran WR and even using draft picks today to trade for an impact veteran WR. After Brown got dealt yesterday, there are still several wideouts looking to be traded/paid that GB could go after, too. You don't have to be a 1st round pick to wind up being a great wide receiver in the NFL - the Packers of all teams know that all too well. Thinking there's going to be a day 2 pick that knows how to run some pass patterns who will wind up being selected tonight. As of this morning, GB's defense doesn't have a weak spot.

Putting Wyatt next to Clark in the middle is a pretty solid way to build a defense from the inside out

Gute's favorite fruit is most definitely a peach - by the bushel baskets

For one, Walker has 4 inches and 20 lbs on Dean and is a much better fit in GBs scheme

Packer defense has consistently struggled to stop the run and cover TE's in the passing game. Walker is a solution to both problems and he's got some bonifides as an occasional edge rusher or blitzer.

When the Packers have traded up early in the draft, from what I remember there's been no rumors about it until you'd see the Packer helmet surprisingly show up in the 'on the clock' graphic right as they were announcing the trade. Having 2 first rounders at the start of this draft is a different animal (particularly with 9 more picks in later rounds behind it), so I'm expecting an active first two nights from Gute - if he does trade up and make a move that reduces the 4 picks in the first two rounds I think it's going to be way up. Otherwise it could be a bunch of deck chair shuffling with trades as other teams move in and out around them and they wind up with two-three mid to late 1st rounders between #18-32.

I'm hoping the Packers pick 3 times in Round 1 by the end of tonight - using a mix of 2nd/mid round draft picks and perhaps a player. I'd be happy if they wound up picking 4 players in the first two rounds, but would be ecstatic getting 3 first rounders with that 5th yr option in their contracts. Also wouldn't shock me if after tonight they picked twice in round one but no longer have some of their 2nd/3rd round picks or a backup quarterback - because they just dealt Love and draft capital for an impact veteran pass catcher. The exciting part to me is how many different ways tonight could go that wind up with me being happy at decisions made - seems like a really good year to have a bunch of picks in the top 60!

Given what is going on this offseason with stud WRs who were drafted after the 1st round demanding market-setting contracts or wanting to be traded headed into their 4th NFL season, if the Packers hold onto that #28 pick I can see them going WR or somewhat of a talented but raw player that would benefit the team greatly to have that 5th year option on their rookie deal. Because of this, it also wouldn't surprise me to see the Packers package one of their 2nd rounders with a player or future draft capital to move into round 1 for a 3rd bite at the 1st round apple. That 5th year option gives the late 1st round picks a ton more value than the top half of round 2 simply for contract/team control certainty.

Gotcha - my main point is this time of year there are always a handful of media draftnick darlings that rocket up boards due to measureables. Sometimes they pan out to be great NFL players - but many times they flame out, particularly if part of the physical advantage they have playing against inferior and immature college players evaporates as soon as they walk into their first NFL minicamp. Specific to Raimann - watched some game tape of him in a 2021 game against a very average Miami of OH defense, and it was apparent that he struggled with pass pro against speed on the edge. Despite his frame and wingspan he seemed to block much more with his body/size advantage against lineman that won't be playing on Sundays (and any other day NFL plays) than with hands behind extended arms. Initial punch on pass blocking was more like absorbing the lineman instead of stopping his momentum with his hands. If a lineman in the NFL lets a defender get into his chest, he's beat either for a holding penalty or he's going to give up pressure. His athleticism makes him very intriguing - but Raimann is very much a project.

I didn't realize a 24 yr old converted TE has already made the NFL's all pro team after playing a couple seasons of offensive line at central michigan. He's projected to eventually be a good starting tackle in the NFL, but he's still very much a development prospect and could just as easily bust out of the league than become a perennial pro bowler. With all the picks GB has in the late first-mid second, Raimann is an intriguing option if he falls in their lap with their late 1st round pick. Any team that drafts him in the first round has to view him as a development project that probably shouldn't be starting his 1st season despite the fact he's already in his mid-20s - which would burn at least one of those rookie contract years up.