son of witless

Thank you very much for talking to me. Lately I have felt like the red headed step child. My new topics disappear, sometimes they never appear at all, and some of your left of center brethren have invited me to stop replying to their posts.

I apologize for saying you blamed Trump for the Covid slowdown during his Presidency. The dossiers which I keep on every poster on OPP seem to be inaccurate in your case. ( kidding ), not that I haven't tried.

I am very informed about economic cycles and that a President can get caught in an economic tide or current that is bigger than what his policies can correct. That said, like a canoeist in a river rapid, his actions can make the difference in whether everything goes totally to shit or not.

Why I will continue to say that President Biden is to blame for high inflation is based on two different main points. First, the economy was awash in liquidity from the Trump stimulus packages. I did not like them, but I can argue that with the covid lock downs they were a necessary evil.

Please bear with me. In the months after the Biden election and up until his inauguration, the economy was opening back up. People were going back to work. This meant that consumer demand for fuel, food, and travel was beginning to explode. Unfortunately oil wells, refineries, and other supply chains cannot just be switched back on. It takes a lot of time.

As people again felt confident enough to spend freely, there simply were not enough supplies of goods. Those with more money, out competed the rest of us. We tried to compete back. Everyone had covid money. Prices had to go up. Then Joe Biden finally took office. What he should have done was wring money out of the economy to retard demand until supply could catch up. He did the exact opposite. He threw more gasoline on the inflation fire with his stimulus bills. Part of that was extending the no evict period. This was to further incentivize workers not to go back to work, which further slowed the supply chain expansion. This was all inflationary.

The second main thing President Biden did that caused inflation was to declare war on oil and gas. Again the exact opposite of what a sane President would have done. Energy inflation became a key driver of general inflation because oil fuels move most goods in America. I don't care WTF Biden spouts, electric Tractor Trailers ain't getting the job done.

I will shut up now because you look bored.

straightUp Loc: California

That was what I would call a reasonable assumption for the moment. But on further investigation they did find that Sicknick had actually died from two strokes at the base of his brain caused by a blood clot in the artery that feeds that part of the body and that there was no evidence of being hit with a fire extinguisher.

This doesn't mean that the stress of the event didn't actually contribute to the problem as stress can have an effect on blood pressure, which can effectively move blood clots through the artery, but there's no way to prove that is actually what happened.

In my opinion, bickering over whether or not the officer died as a result of the riot is only a distraction from the fact that the riot happened and that it WAS violent and it DID result in death when another officer in the line of duty shot and killed someone who was trying to breach the capitol building. Sorry folks, he was doing his job.

People need to understand that if you're going to attack the capitol while Congress is in session, you ARE putting yourself at risk of being shot. It's kind of a no-brainer.

straightUp Loc: California

Thank you for your civility and for maintaining a focus on the topic.


I agree the stimulus package was a necessary evil. We are essentially a consumer-driven economy so it's important to keep the bottom funded. BTW, Trump wasn't really responsible for that stimulus package... that came from Congress. The point of bringing this up isn't to deny Trump any credit but to suggest that ANY president including Biden would have signed it. In any case, I don't agree that this stimulus package left the economy awash in liquidity. If it did there wouldn't have been a need for a second stimulus package.


Here's where I suggest you do a little more research. The fact is, oil and gas was never shut down - not even a little bit. Biden's so-called "war" on oil and gas is based on misinformation stemming from his decision to stop leasing federal land to the carbon fuel industry. That only put a stop to plans for future drilling that would not even be online for another ten years from now.

What actually did happen is that the pandemic effect on the economy brought market demand for energy down momentarily, which dropped share prices. The oil companies took advantage of that lull to buy back stocks on the cheap. When the demand shot back up (as they knew it would) they simply took advantage again and increased the price of oil and gas, which is typically how inflation happens.

None of this has anything to do with Trump OR Biden. The price of oil and gas is set by those trading the commodity not the government. This isn't North Korea.

Also despite his claims, there is nothing Trump can do to increase production that the industry isn't already doing under while Biden sits in office. Trump could possibly have an impact on oil production 10 years from now by reversing Biden's policy on saving federal land from industrial greed, but it's my hope that 10 years from now, we will be far less dependent on fossil fuel to power our antiquated machines.


Another correction (sorry) - there was an abundance of supplies... the problem was the traffic jam in distribution. This is why ports like Long Beach CA had queues of ships waiting to unload and not enough space to put everything. In simple terms, our infrastructure wasn't able to handle the interruption to the normal flow of products.


This is a constant normal. Those with more money engage in the market at a different scale of economy than we do as middle-class Americans. This is one of those things where I think people need to wake up and smell the coffee.


I don't think the money people got from the stimulus package was enough to have THAT much effect on market demand. For the reason I just mentioned (scale of economy), it would literally take millions of Americans with their little stimulus checks to equal the power of a single investor in the top 1% who can actually change the market by dumping several million dollars in one trade. This is the reason why economists started to make references to the Wall Street economy as a contrast to the Main Street economy.


So Trump signs a stimulus bill and you're OK with that because it was a "necessary evil" and a few months later Biden signs another one and that's throwing gasoline on a fire?

I get what you're saying about the timing... but those bills were only a few months apart. The economy doesn't change as drastically as you are suggesting in just a few months.

As I had already suggested, the first stimulus package helped people at the bottom to get out of some tight spots, but it wasn't enough to drive any significant change in market demand. A paltry .05% growth rate in the GDP would do more. The second wave of stimulus checks didn't do much more. Again, it saved some families at the bottom which in my opinion makes the stimulus package worthy but it certainly didn't have the impact on the economy that you seem to be suggesting.

One thing to recognize is that one-time checks issued to middle-class Americans always helps their situation for a day but it never makes much difference to the economy as a whole. Jobs are far better because a job will actually change a consumers budget.


That's pure speculation... I personally don't know anyone stupid enough to think that a temporary freeze on evictions would alleviate them from needing a job. I don't know if you gave this much thought, but you are actually suggesting that Americans ARE that stupid.

The freeze on evictions simply gave people the chance to stay in their place of residence long enough for them to GET a job, which is a lot harder to do when you're homeless.


You already mentioned this and I already responded... Biden didn't cut production. Look up the facts. I realize this is the narrative that you are subscribing to but it's a false narrative. Energy inflation was 100% driven by the industry in an effort to profit from the economic disruption. There's nothing Biden or Trump could have done (or could do) about it without interfering with free market forces, which the presidency does not have the authority to do.

I understand the principles being employed by this false narrative and it would even make sense if everything else was equal but that just isn't the reality. Floating this narrative is like suggesting a paper airplane can break the sound barrier simply because it flies.


LOL - Well, being confronted with the same false narratives over and over again does get a bit boring at times, but when people like yourself actually put the effort into rationalizing a narrative, it gives me hope that they might actually understand my counter arguments or maybe even educate me.

son of witless

I am sorry I do not have the energy or time to go through point for point on your reply, right now. Just returned from a family trip. I do try to give my honest opinions, when anyone challenges and questions me. I am tired of people posting things and when I ask for clarification or proof they retort back that I wouldn't believe them, so that excuses them from defending their posts. Guess that explains my recent pariah status.

God willing in the near future I will address everything you alluded to in your latest reply. I hope you will have a pleasant evening.

straightUp Loc: California

No worries... I tend to get busy too and time with family is infinitely more important than debating opinions online. Take your time and if I don't catch your response feel free to PM.

son of witless

" In any case, I don't agree that this stimulus package left the economy awash in liquidity. If it did there wouldn't have been a need for a second stimulus package. "

That is my main point. There was no economic need for President Biden's stimulus package. There was a political need. Biden's economic team, they ain't very schmart, wanted to juice the economy so as to make a stark a comparison as possible between Trump's covid plagued economy and Biden's new economy. The subsequent inflation that surprised the Biden economic team by it's Stickyness, has proven I am right.

" The fact is, oil and gas was never shut down - not even a little bit. "

That is not a fact. In April of 2020 the price per barrel of oil was minus $37.63.-

https://www.statista.com/statistics/466293/lowest-crude-oil-prices-due-to-covid-19/

" On April 20th, 2020, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil slumped into negative for the first time in history, falling to negative 37.63 U.S. dollars per barrel. "

I realize that the crazies on the left were over the Moon, that those evil nasty greedy oil barons were hurting, but for those who deal in reality, this was not good. And yes oil production in the US did shut down and more than a little bit. It had to. Once the storage facilities around the country were full, where were they going to go with it ?

Now President Trump, you remember him, the guy your people say is Hitler Jr. had a most excellent idea. He thought that how about we fill up the Strategic Oil Reserve. It was brilliant, no it was genius. The government could buy the oil Super Duper Cheap, and the oil industry would not have to moth ball so much production capacity. Guess what ? It did not happen.

Do you know why ? Because it made too much sense. So of course the Democrats killed it. They had to. No way would they allow a bone to be thrown to the evil dastardly American Petroleum Industry. An 8 % decline is ginormous. But I know what you are thinking. Son of Witless, where is your proof that US oil production dramatically declined ? Thank you for asking.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47056#:~:text=U.S.%20crude%20oil%20production%20averaged%2011.3%20million%20barrels,decline%20in%20the%20U.S.%20Energy%20Information%20Administration%E2%80%99s%20records.

" U.S. crude oil production averaged 11.3 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2020, down 935,000 b/d (8%) from the record annual average high of 12.2 million b/d in 2019. The 2020 decrease in production was the largest annual decline in the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s records. The production decline resulted from reduced drilling activity related to low oil prices in 2020. "

I apologize for not addressing all of your points. I detest long posts, and this one is way over long. I will try to get to your other concerns another time. Have a good afternoon.

straightUp Loc: California

See? We agree already. ;)


I literally said there WAS a need for it and you said that was your main point... Now you're saying there WASN'T a need for it... Are you confused or am I?


Everything the government does satisfies a political need.


Biden's economic team didn't have anything to do with it. That second stimulus check came from Congress, just like the first one did. All Biden did was sign it, just like Trump did with the first one.

I realize that the American right tends to think of the president as as king, but our government doesn't work that way. We are a representative democracy... We elect representatives to Congress and that's where the big decisions are made on our behalf. Elected representatives from both sides of the aisle agreed that Americans needed the stimulus that Biden signed.


Actually it doesn't because inflation was caused by many more factors than just the stimulus checks. Blaming inflation on the stimulus checks alone is like blaming one customer out of 10,000 for a run on the bank.

Keep in mind that ONLY banks are allowed to actually create money. The government does not have that power. The banks do because of the fractional reserve banking system in which they only need 10% of the money they are loaning to actually exist in reserve. The other 90% is created out of thin air based on the creation of debt.

So when the government borrowed from the Federal Reserve so they can issue stimulus checks, they were in fact causing the banks to create new money, which DOES inflate the money supply. But let me also point out that personal credit card debt sky-rocketed after the pandemic to a record-breaking total of $1.3 trillion. This also created new money in the same way... Same game, different banks.

So, what I'm saying here is that the creation of money that inflated the supply didn't just come from the stimulus packages... It also came from Americans like you and me covering what the stimulus checks didn't cover by putting it on our credit cards. The market doesn't care if the money came from our national debt or from our personal debts... it's all the same in the end.

This is why it's logical to assume that the money supply would have been inflated anyway. With or without the stimulus checks. If the stimulus checks made any difference, it would be in the way it shifted some of the debt from personal liability to national liability and it helped the people who the banks wouldn't have helped due to poor credit ratings.

And this only accounts for the inflation caused by adding money to the economy... On top of that you had the rampant price-gouging following the pandemic, which explains why the price of gas at the pump went up. Technically, this isn't true inflation but the effect on the price tag is the same and a lot of people can't really tell the difference; It's all inflation to them.

So... I'm afraid there is almost no evidence to suggest that the government, much less the Biden administration is primarily responsible for inflation. In fact, THAT is an argument made to satisfy a political need. If I were you, I would reconsider your sources.


And what makes you think you can prove anything about the supply simply by looking at the price and nothing else? I already mentioned price-gouging. That DOES happen and when it does, the price goes up no matter what the supply looks like. You seem to think we live in a world where big corporations never do anything dishonest.


OK... this one's not so easy to explain but that wasn't the actual price of a barrel of oil physically traded. That negative value was the result of paper contracts traded by speculators and hedgers with no physical access to the oil. The intention is to sell the paper contract to those who do have access. The thing to understand here is that each WTI contract requires the delivery of 1,000 barrels of WTI crude to a specific holding tank in Oklahoma which was a problem for the speculators because they failed to predict the pandemic and it's effect on demand that left the tank FULL for the duration of that trading period. So the contracts could not be fulfilled because there was no more room to accept further deliveries. Meanwhile, the speculators had to close their books at the end of the trading period which happened to be April 20th. So they were forced to take a loss by paying a premium $37.63 per barrel just to sell the contracts and close their books. The very next day, physical trading resumed at $15 per barrel.

Speculators can really distort the picture and I barely understand this stuff myself, I would suggested reading this... https://gardner.utah.edu/blog/blog-what-negative-oil-prices-really-mean/

But as complicated as paper trading can be, didn't you wonder how a drop in supply would result in a drop in price? The general rule of thumb is when supply goes down, the prices go up, not down. So didn't this weird anomaly on the market make you think that there has to be a different explanation? I mean, seriously, how do you SELL something for negative money?

I tell ya what, I would LOVE for the supermarket that sold me the coffee I am drinking to have actually paid ME the $17 to "buy" the bag of beans instead of the other way around. LOL


I don't know about the crazies on the left but the sensible people on the left such as myself knew perfectly well that companies like WTI weren't hurting. Just to show you, WTI stock opened on 4/20/20 at 1.8900 per share and they closed that day at 2.7200 per share. They were doing fine. Obviously, some speculators got hurt but that's the price they pay for playing risky games with our economy while producing nothing.


Weren't you just blaming Biden for cutting oil production in an effort to explain the rise in prices (inflation)? Now you're saying they HAD to cut back because of an OVERSUPPLY of oil and yet prices still rose because Biden cut oil production? Forgive me for being confused but your argument just isn't making any sense. The price of gas at the pump is affected by supply, not production. Even if production WAS cut, as long as the supply is abundant, the price should remain low. That's why it really doesn't matter if we produce the oil or import it as long as it gets to our storage tanks, the prices should remain low.

Maybe think about it and get back to me.


The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was created in 1975 specifically so the government could buy oil and stockpile it. How are you calling Trump a genius for basically saying we ought to do that?

"I'm going to drive to work now... and guess what? I'm going to use my hands to turn the steering wheel."
"dude... that's frickin' GENIUS!"

Look, every president since Reagan has wanted to fill the SPR and until Trump came along every president except Clinton saw a net gain in SPR volume. Ironically, Trump, despite his blabbering, is the first and only Republican president to see a net decline in SPR volume.


The reason why it didn't happen is because Congress took it out of the stimulus package. First of all, this was in 2020 after Trump had already allowed the SPR to bleed in each of his three previous years for a total loss of 60 million barrels which made him look bad considering that no other Republican president had ever allowed a net loss like that... Even under Obama the reserves gained a net 27 million barrels. Trump knew that this might be his last chance to make amends and so he so he tried to shove the proposal into the stimulus bill. The problem there is despite Trump's blabber about buying oil for cheap, the oil industry had no intention of giving the government a discount and it was calculated that topping off the SPR at current prices would cost about $2.3 billion.

So, my bet is that Congress knew the oil industry was not hurting and at the time, they were trying to help the American people while keeping the cost down as much as possible. I would call it fiscal responsibility... that term that Republicans blabber about while Democrats actually practice it.


One problem with all this... Biden didn't take office until 2021. I wasn't talking about the Trump years. YOU had claimed that oil production was cut because of Biden's "war on oil". I countered by saying oil production was NOT cut. Because of your claim, I was referring to the years that Biden was in office not the years that Trump was in office and Biden had no say in the matter.


No worries... Maybe next time you post, try to keep your assertions to a minimum because I DO respond to each point and when there's a lot of assertions to challenge it does make for a long post.

Again, thanks for remaining civil.

son of witless

OMG

Could you please have made it a little longer ? Just kidding. You have overwhelmed me. I prefer only discussing at most 3 items at a time. You always seem to catch me at the worst of times. At present I am battling with my cell phone provider for partially locking me out of my account. But I digress.

" I literally said there WAS a need for it and you said that was your main point... Now you're saying there WASN'T a need for it... Are you confused or am I? "

Why did you say there was a need for it ? Because President Biden said so ? All a stimulus Bill does is create money out of thin air and pump it into the economy. There was already too much money in the economy from the Trump stimulus from the covid lock downs. The last thing needed was more liquidity pumped into an over cashed economy as President Biden took office.

straightUp Loc: California

Most of what I posted was a response to an assertion you made. I see you decided to pare down to just one question and one assertion...


I think you know me better than that. But to be direct, no... I don't actually take ANY president's word as gospel.

There are several reasons why I suspect there was a need. The most obvious one to me is that the average amount received by each individual after TWO rounds of stimulus checks signed by Trump was only $1800. That's actually the average figure for an individuals housing costs for one month. The average monthly expense for an individual living in the U.S. is $3405. So given this reality - that $1800 really doesn't amount to much, especially when so many Americans lost their incomes during the pandemic, which wasn't limited to one month.


I guess you missed the point I made about individual credit card debt soaring to a record-breaking $1.3 trillion following the pandemic. Credit card debt also creates money out of thin air and pumps it into the economy. Like I said it's the same game, different bank. If anything, the stimulus checks may have cut down on the individual's need to use credit cards thereby shifting the liability from personal debt to the national debt. But like I also said it really doesn't matter in the end HOW that money was created, only that it was. It's all going into the same economy.

The fact that people were using credit cards to create record breaking debt is a strong indication that the stimulus checks were NOT excessive and it's very likely that without the stimulus checks, Americans would have used their credit cards to pump the same amount of money into the economy anyway.


Yeah, it's funny how you seem to think it was OK when Trump did it but when Biden did it, all of a sudden its an oversteer. The THIRD round where Biden signed the checks was only four months later. Not even the most prestigious economists can assess an entire $20.93 trillion economy in just four months. You must be very special ;)

Speaking of $20.93 trillion, that was the size of our economy in 2020. The total sum of stimulus spending was $814 billion. I know it sounds like a lot but it comes out to a little less than 4% of the total economy... I really think you're giving those tiny little checks far too much credit. You seem to be thinking our economy only has one scale.

One more thing and then I'll cut out... You criticized the Democrats for saying "no" to topping off the SPR as Trump had asked. Are you aware that it would have cost the government $2.3 billion and that Trump was trying to add that to the stimulus package that you are criticizing for already adding too much money to the economy?

So... if that went though, would you be having an argument with yourself about it?

LOL - Welcome to chess, my friend... Where considerations encompass more than what the checker players in politics typically offer when rationalizing things to the dumbass public. This is why I'm a huge advocate of teaching critical thinking in schools. If they did, Americans wouldn't be so willing to believe anything the politicians in THEIR party tells them and we might be in a much better situation today.

Oh, and hope things work out with your phone provider.

TJKMO Loc: Bicycle Heaven

Maybe you could use stimulus $$$ to pay your phone bill on time.

son of witless

" Yeah, it's funny how you seem to think it was OK when Trump did it but when Biden did it, all of a sudden its an oversteer. "

I wondered for a long time when you would take a swing at my hanging curve ball. Of course my answer is that it depends. The economic conditions under President Donald J. Trump were totally different than under President Joe Biden. Trump was dealing with a severe collapse of consumer demand. People not going to work because of the covid shutdowns and not having a paycheck coming in are not going on vacation and freely spending money.

By the time President Biden came into office those workers who wanted to go back to work were going back to work. Yes you can always find people who were not able to return to work, but most who wanted to go back were going back. Consumer demand was coming back fast. A lot faster than gasoline, food, and services were returning to normal. So what happens when consumer spending comes back faster than available goods and services are available ?

Consumers begin bidding up the prices of goods and services. Providers of goods and services can easily raise prices because of the shortages. Then because of Biden's extending of no eviction and giving more free money to everyone, those who do not want to work can stay on vacation. This makes labor scarce and now businesses bid up the price of workers, further fueling the inflation spiral that Biden unleashed.

In the meantime the " experts " in the Biden Administration predict that inflation will be transitory. It will be 2 years before Joe's " experts " realize that they are mistaken.

straightUp Loc: California

"Bidenflation": noun: a frustration with the economy expressed by those who have no clue and are just parroting what they hear or in some cases just want to blame President Biden for everything.

XXX Loc: Somewhere north of the Mason-Dixon

Wrong it's the term used to describe the economy named after the president.

straightUp Loc: California

LOL - is that what that is?


Well, it's true that the pandemic had a severe impact on the economy but that didn't happen until Trump's last year in office and we were still dealing with the effects of the pandemic when Biden took office.

I never judge a president by the economy in his first year in office anyway because of the delay between taking office and actually setting policy THEN the latency between establishing policy and the effects of those policies on the economy. But the pandemic effect, including inevitable recovery resulting from a normalization of commerce really dominated the situation and IMO invalidates any attempt to relate economic status with policy.


I think you mean consumer demand. Consumer spending can't actually exceed the availability of goods and services because consumers don't pay for goods and services that don't exist. But yes, the demand CAN exceed the supply and that DOES typically lead to inflation, which I'm sure is the answer you're looking for.

But if you go deeper, there's more to see. Evidence indicates that there was no shortage of supply. There was plenty of gasoline, plenty of food and services were almost immediately restored. The problem that Biden-bashers ALWAYS miss is distribution factor... specifically, the bandwidth in which goods flow from supplier to consumer. That was a bottleneck because our embarrassingly antiquated infrastructure couldn't handle the backlogs. It's the same basic problem we are seeing at the border where a backlog of migrants building up during Title 42 which was enacted BECAUSE of the pandemic, suddenly swamped the border when Title 42 was pulled which is now overwhelming the immigration system that Biden inherited.

To his credit, Biden DID champion a bi-partisan bill to invest in upgrading our infrastructure. He also agreed to sign a bi-partisan bill to invest in our immigration system, but apparently Trump told his puppets in the GOP to vote against it which can only be attributed to a desire on his part to preserve the crisis for the election season.


Of course, and this is exactly what happened. Whether it's the supply or the distribution, the impact to the consumer is a lack of availability, so the price gouging starts and consumers accept the results. Now we have inflation.


So, again you're confirming that inflation has already started while at the same time shifting the blame to policies that were enacted afterwards. You DO realize that inflation actually started when Trump was still in office, right?

I can accept the possibility that Biden may have made the situation worse, but to blame him for the entire thing just reeks of politics. Like I mentioned before, ALL the "free" money (and you KNOW it's not actually free, right?) including the stimulus checks that Trump signed... amounts to less than 4% of the economy.

National economies are like massive ships... You can't turn them on a dime. And there are so many factors involved that it's almost impossible to isolate the effect of any specific government policy. The standard practice in political BS is to leverage coincidence. Point to a new policy you don't like then find a statistic like the GDP which by coincidence dropped and you think you got a case, even though there are billions of dollars worth of other factors being ignored.

Also, I still think you're struggling with the concept of economic scale. A 4% increase in money supply can make a huge difference to individuals that the government was trying to help, but it's mere drop in the ocean of the largest economy on Earth.

And I'm not sure what your problem is with the no eviction policy. It saved a lot of hard working people and their families from being kicked to the streets. You seem to have a very low opinion of the average American by suggesting that those who are lazy and stupid enough to use that as an excuse not to work is so abundant that it would affect the labor market. Maybe you're just spending too much time with Republicans ;)

I would venture to say a far bigger impact on the labor market is the generational impact of an aging population, a disillusionment with public education and a fear of immigrants. Compared to these factors a few months of keeping tenants in their homes seems practically inert.


Well, in economic terms inflation is ALWAYS transitory because the markets are self-adjusting. It's what Adam Smith called the Invisible Hand.

But if you are referring to the long term decline of the middle-class where wages have been stagnant for decade while prices continue to rise, then yes we COULD call that inflation but I prefer to call it a middle-class decline because it's not so much a matter of how much money there is, but how much of it is slipping out of reach from the middle class.

Wealth distribution (and no, I am not Marxist... I'm using that term because it's appropriate) has become is super concentrated in the top 1%. As they used to say back when we had the freedom to talk about the truth without being called a communist, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

This is where unregulated capitalism has taken us. (Yes, I align with Keynes' in saying that capitalism is wonderful as long as it's regulated). If there is ONE dataset that overrules all others when describing our nations condition, wealth distribution would be it.

So buckle up because unless we start listening to people like Bernie Sanders on the left or even Ron Paul on the right, it's going to get worse. And if we continue on the road we seem to be on now where concerns for the economy are being drowned out by culture wars and tribalism, it's going to be a fascist nightmare.

Ah, sorry man... another long post. This time I can't blame you for it. ;)

straightUp Loc: California

That would be "Bidenomics".