The November 2025 ISM® Manufacturing PMI® Report delivered a Manufacturing PMI® of 48.2%. This level below 50 signifies contraction in manufacturing. The Manufacturing PMI® is in its 9th straight month in contraction and 35th month of contraction in the past 37 months. January and February of this year were the only two months of growth over this timespan. Fortunately, manufacturing is not weak enough to drag the entire economy into contraction. According to ISM, a Manufacturing PMI® above 42.3% “over a period of time” is consistent with an expanding economy. In fact, “the past relationship between the Manufacturing PMI^® and the overall economy indicates that the November reading corresponds to a 1.7% increase in real gross domestic product (GDP) on an annualized basis”.

Unfortunately, the ongoing contraction in manufacturing has not cooled off inflationary pressures. Currently, higher steel and aluminum prices have cascaded through the manufacturing value chain. Tariffs on imported goods have created additional cost burdens. The ISM^® Prices Index increased month-over-month from 58.0% to 58.5%. The Prices Index is also up 6 percentage points year-over-year and has increased for 14 straight months. 

Perhaps tellingly, Computer & Electronic Products was one of four industries that grew in November. I assume the rush to implement AI across enterprises and government is providing this push. For example, Dell Technologies (DELL) reported exceptionally strong demand for AI servers. From the transcript of the recent Q3 2026 earnings call: “AI server demand remained exceptionally strong. We booked $12.3 billion in orders in the quarter, bringing year-to-date orders to $30 billion, both record figures. The large-scale customer base continues to broaden with expansion across neo-cloud or Tier 2 CSPs and sovereigns”.

With manufacturing locked in contraction and services still carrying economic growth, the divide between these two sides of the economy has become central to understanding today’s stagflationary pressures. Input costs continue to rise even as new technologies reshape demand patterns. The expanding adoption of AI could influence productivity and cost structures in unexpected ways. How these pressures resolve in 2026 will be essential to tracking whether stagflation persists, begins to unwind, or takes on a new form altogether.

Full disclosure: long DELL

The post Manufacturing’s Experience with Stagflation appeared first on Inflation Watch.

In his speech at the annual Jackson Hole confab, Powell acknowledged that “with policy in restrictive territory, the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance” (emphasis mine). In normal times, with this ever so slight tweak in Powell’s inclinations and probabilities coming at the end of a long explanation of the balance of risks to inflation, employment, and the economy, this concession could be interpreted as another tease in the on-going suspense and fight over rate cuts. Instead, a stock market ever more eager for rate cuts built a temple from a single stair step and responded with one of the biggest expansions in market breadth that I have ever seen.

Maintaining high odds of a September rate cut will effectively force the Fed to cut. However, if Powell stays on message – “monetary policy is not on a preset course” – then the September rate cut could easily lead to a major disappointment. The Fed’s voting majority may not be ready to promise a sustained rate cutting cycle because inflation remains a nagging problem for the Fed.

Even before the tariff drama, trauma, and noise, inflation was proving itself sticky and stubborn. Now, core CPI (Consumer Price Index) and core PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditures), the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, look like they have bottomed. Core CPI has even started heading upward largely thanks to a lift in services inflation. As a result, not only is the Fed looking to cut rates well short of its 2% (core PCE) target but also just as inflation’s downtrend is taking an extended pause.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Consumption Expenditures Excluding Food and Energy (Chain-Type Price Index) [PCEPILFE], retrieved from FRED; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items Less Food and Energy in U.S. City Average [CPILFESL], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, August 25, 2025.

A suddenly very hot Producer Price Index (PPI) from July promises that subsequent CPI reads will not deliver inflation relief.

Moreover, tariff-driven inflation is already showing up both in the anecdotes from business leaders, earnings reports, and the Fed’s own research. Moreover, even though the Fed Funds rate is still in restrictive territory, financial conditions are not tight. In fact, financial conditions were last this loose right before the Fed belatedly started hiking rates in early 2022.

All together, these stories provide cautionary tales for rate cuts. The confidence I observe in the “rate-cutters” shows insufficient deference to the stagflationary possibilities in the economy. Powell characterized the potential as “a challenging situation” after he finished explaining how “in the near term, risks to inflation are tilted to the upside, and risks to employment to the downside”. This position between a rock and a hard place motivates me to tighten my grip on my position in Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP).

A Swirl Of Claims and Counterclaims

At this point, every one has an opinion on what the Fed needs to do. I have taken note of some key interviews and speeches to portray the painful complexity of the task ahead for the Federal Reserve. Anyone who claims with confidence that the Fed should do “X” is glossing over some part of this picture.

Cleveland President Beth Hammack Leans Against A Rate Cut

Interviews like the one with Cleveland President Beth Hammack formed part of the reason the stock market got caught leaning away from Powell’s first step on the stairs of hopeful monetary policy. A day before Powell’s speech, Hammack insisted that “with the data in hand right now, if the meeting was tomorrow, I would not see a case for reducing interest rates”. She warned that her “biggest concern is that inflation has been too high for the past 4 years. And right now it has been trending in the wrong direction [see chart above]. It’s important we stay modestly restrictive to make sure inflation is brought back under control” (Hammack’s predecessor expressed similar concerns earlier in the month).

Hammack also worried that the inflationary impact of tariffs are just getting started and will continue into Q1 and Q2 of next year given the timing of contract renewals. These worries did not sound like the setup for an incrementally conciliatory Powell.

Hammack also stated that “financial conditions are broadly supportive of the economy” (consistent with the ANFCI). Moreover, she is “not hearing interest rates are a huge problem”. The builders and businesses building new plants in Hammack’s district are complaining just as much about the cost of materials and labor as they are about high interest rates. In a case for future inflationary pressures, manufacturers in the Cleveland district have been buffering price increases but cannot not sustain the hits “forever”.

I surmise Hammack will vote against a rate hike in September. Will she suddenly find herself on the dissenting side of the ledger?

Former St. Louis Fed President Jim Bullard Bolsters Candidacy As Next Fed Chair

Candidates for position of the next Fed Chair share a common trait. They think tariffs will not cause lasting inflation and support cutting rates right away. Former St. Louis Fed President Jim Bullard is a recent add to the candidate list. In a CNBC interview on August 12, Bullard insisted tariffs do not cause inflation. Tariffs are a tax and taxes do not cause inflation (a common equivalence). He pointed to data showing very muted effects and claimed that tariffs are not interrupting the longer-term trend to 2% inflation. Like other supporters of rate cuts, Bullard is looking well beyond the current swirl of data and glancing at the top of the stairs of hopeful monetary policy.

Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran Asks “What Inflation”?

Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran is also on the list of potential candidates to next head the Fed. Miran appeared on CNBC the same day as Bullard to discuss the economy. By narrowing his view to inflation since inauguration, Miran calculated a 1.9% annualized rate of inflation (I assume this was a reference to headline inflation). He further insisted that there “continues to be no evidence whatsoever of tariff-induced inflation”, and he implied that there will be no evidence for future impacts either. Ultimately, exporters will bear the cost of tariffs because they are the least flexible part of the supply chain; Americans will just buy elsewhere or make formerly imported goods domestically (do exporting countries doing deals understand their ultimate doom?).

When asked about the bottoming in core inflation, Miran dismissed the dynamic because tariffs are not the culprit. Miran pointed to used cars and airfares as core drivers. He went on to finger illegal immigration for boosting rents by 4-5%. Thus, net services inflation will go to zero because of the current crackdown on illegal residency.

Miran stands confidently at the top of the stairs of hopeful monetary policy. I am guessing he is a front-runner in the race for Fed Chair.

Gold Paralyzed With Indecision?

The price of gold has largely stopped responding to the back and forth in inflation-related data and opinions on monetary policy. While the SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) increased 1.1% in the wake of Powell’s first step on the stairs of hopeful monetary policy, GLD remains firmly stuck in a 4-month trading range. A technical “bearish engulfing” pattern in April continues to loom over the trading action as a top. Still, I am betting on GLD responding bullishly to the next rate cut just as it did to the last one. GLD is up 30% after initially selling off in response to what was thought to be a hawkish rate cut at the time.

I have been holding a GLD calendar call spread for the last half or so of this trading range while rolling forward the expiring short ends of the spread. I plan to convert this position to an outright call spread ahead of the September Fed meeting.

Be careful out there!

The post Powell Places His First Step On the Stairs Of Hopeful Monetary Policy appeared first on Inflation Watch.

In a recent interview, Fundstrat Co-founder and Head of Research Tom Lee made a convincing but incomplete argument for team non-inflationary when describing the economic impacts of tariffs. From Lee’s perspective, a tariff is a tax that simply reallocates money in the economy. Money transfers from companies and/or consumers in the supply chain to the government. That money goes right back into the economy through government spending. Thus, money just flows from one set of hands to another. This argument seems to rely on a monetary theory of inflation, where an increase in the money supply is the main driver of inflation; tariffs do not increase the money supply.

The Limits of Monetarism in Today’s Economy

Milton Friedman made monetary theory, or monetarism, famous through quotes like: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” Monetarism seemed to work well to explain the economy of the 1970s and 1980s but waned over time according to the IMF. Still, given the fluid and dynamic nature of today’s economies, I am fully willing to accept that monetarism can and will become relevant under the right circumstances. Today’s tariff regime is not creating the right circumstances.

Tariffs, Wages, and Supply Chain Reactions

Because Lee thinks of tariffs as a transfer of money from people and companies to the government, he implied that instead of hiking rates to counteract inflationary effects, the Fed should cut rates in order to counteract a drop in demand from higher prices. However, Lee does not explicitly account for the potential responses to tariffs across the supply chain. As prices rise, consumers may ask for higher wages to cover increased costs in the economy. These higher wages are in turn paid for with higher prices. And so on. Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller countered this fear by insisting that today’s economy does not grant workers such economic power, certainly not like they had in the immediate wake of the pandemic. However, as strict immigration policy tightens the U.S. workforce, remaining workers in significant portions of the economy could find themselves with renewed economic power to demand higher wages to offset any real or perceived tariff-driven cost increases. The final or net impacts are hard to predict.

Demand Destruction and Fed Caution

Consumers will find little comfort or relief knowing that their higher costs boost government coffers. For example, the recent budget bill held as a premise that money is better left in consumer pockets and corporate treasuries than in government accounts. Thus, a tariff-induced price hike will induce responses from the payers of that tax in order to offset real economic impacts. In the interview, Lee appears to lean toward demand destruction as the deflationary counterbalance that can relieve pressure on consumers. Yet, with the looming uncertainty about the path of tariff policy and its eventual impacts, the Federal Reserve is well-served to proceed with caution. For example, cutting rates to offset demand destruction could entrench the inflationary impulse that pressured demand. In the optimistic scenario, the Fed could do well to wait on businesses and suppliers to work out efficiencies to avoid passing on tariff costs into the rest of the economy.

The Inflationary Impact Is Real and Already Here

In the middle of all the swirl on inflationary impacts from tariffs comes a recent Federal Reserve study that has already detected inflationary impacts from the current tariff regime and has concluded that the first trade war with China from 2018–2019 also boosted inflation. From “Detecting Tariff Effects on Consumer Prices in Real Time“:

“…we find that US import tariffs led to a statistically significant increase in consumer goods prices. For the 2018–19 tariffs, our local-projections approach reveals that tariff changes were passed through fully and quickly—within two months of tariff implementation—to consumer goods prices. For the February and March 2025 tariffs implemented on imports from China, we find that tariffs have already passed through partially to the consumer goods prices that we can observe through March. Our results indicate that the 2025 tariffs have so far led to a 0.3 percent increase in core goods PCE prices, contributing to a 0.1 percent increase in core PCE prices (goods and services prices, excluding food and energy) as a whole.”

An illustrative research paper from the San Francisco Federal Reserve, “The Effects of Tariffs on Inflation and Production Costs” by Bart Hobijn and Fernanda Nechio, makes an even more stark case for the inflationary impacts of tariffs:

“Estimates suggest that the impact on prices for investment goods is likely to be much larger than for consumption goods. For example, if an across-the-board 25% tariff is fully passed through to finished goods, near-term price increases are estimated to be about 9.5% for investment goods and 2.2% for consumption goods.”

Hobijn and Nechio further explain that “the import content is much larger for investment goods than for consumption goods. This is because domestic markups tend to be smaller for investment goods than for consumer goods, making the import content of their costs much larger.”

Thus, even if aggregate inflation somehow sustains minimal impact because of fortuitous offsets, significant parts of the economy could suffer. Without tariffs, the inflation rates in both periods could have been lower. With inflation still above the Fed’s 2.0% target, a cut in rates in the middle of so much uncertainty carries all types of risks.

Bostic Speaks for Team Inflation

In commentary hearkening back to the warning signs from the last Beige Book, Raphael Bostic, President of the Atlanta Federal Reserve, cautioned in a CNBC International interview that the Fed’s business contacts have clearly signaled their willingness and readiness to raise prices in response to tariffs. In commentary that could be referencing the recent Fed study, Bostic also claimed that inflation is already showing up in current tariffs. Most interesting to me in this inflationary story is Bostic’s counter to the theory posed by Waller and others that tariffs create a one-time price shock and then inflation just goes back to normal (emphasis mine):

“The textbook story for economics is if you do tariffs, it’s a one-time shift. It happens quickly. Everyone understands what’s going on and then the world goes back to how it was before. So you should look through that. What we are seeing today though is not just a one-time shift. It’s actually something that’s being stretched out over a much longer period of time. I think that runs the risk that people start to feel like inflation is always with them. This elevated level of inflation is always with them. And that then runs the risk that there might be some structural changes that businesses and consumers, for that matter, make in terms of how they respond and how they engage in the marketplace.”

Bostic sums up very well why the Fed must proceed with caution. Without clarity on the shape, timing, or magnitude of tariff policy, predictions and models are precarious. Rushing to cut rates risks worsening any upcoming inflation surprises.

Bostic also has support in other economic research. The following quote from an NBER working paper, “Tariffs As Cost-Push Shocks: Implications for Optimal Monetary Policy” by Iván Werning, Guido Lorenzoni, and Veronica Guerrieri, suggests that calls to “see through” tariff shocks represent more economic bravery than some may admit (emphasis mine):

“A widely held tenet in the practice of central banking is that a shock like a tariff shock, that entails a mechanical increase in some prices, is a shock that requires the central bank to “see through it”, in other words, to let the mechanical effect of the tariff in prices to affect the overall price level, but avoid
larger increase in prices. To be fair, this is a rule of thumb which, as far as we know, does not correspond to any result in economic theory.”

Conclusion: Stagflation at the Center

Ultimately, all this back and forth on the potential inflationary impact of tariffs tells me that stagflation remains front and center in the economic window. The Fed is right to remain cautious, but as time drags on, economic risks increase for both inflation from tariffs and for an economic slowdown from demand destruction or even ongoing cyclical factors. Today’s predictions will turn out wrong in surprising ways. The Federal Reserve is caught in a tough position where it needs to wait but may find the rising risks and costs of waiting increasingly difficult to absorb.

The staglfationary risks and dilemmas come through in the following quote from the NBER working paper:

“Is a tariff expansionary or contractionary? The answer depends on how monetary policy responds… Based on our equivalence result, a tariff is best understood as a supply-side disturbance—not a demand-side disturbance—that introduces a trade-off for monetary policy. If the central bank prioritizes price stability, the tariff will lead to a sharp short-run contraction. Alternatively, the central bank can offset this contraction by pursuing an expansionary response. In sum, the notion of a “neutral” monetary policy is not well defined.”

In the meantime, I remain committed to Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) as my hedge on the Fed’s increasingly precarious stagflationary bind. For now, the ETF has bounced around at the whims of long-term Treasury bonds, vacillating from nervousness over the U.S.’s ballooning debt to reassurances over the economy to mild flight-to-safety flows.

Source: Tradingview.com

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long GTIP

Tom Lee’s inflation commentary comes at the 7:25 mark in the video below…

The post Tom Lee Dismisses Tariff Inflation — But Data, Theory, and Research Say Otherwise appeared first on Inflation Watch.

Tariffs Create Inflation Risk

While the administration goes back and forth on whether tariffs will create price increases, Powell is quite clear: “If the large increases in tariffs that have been announced are sustained, they are likely to generate a rise in inflation”. Powell further warned that these large tariffs will also likely lead to “a slowdown in economic growth, and an increase in unemployment”. This cocktail is the very definition of stagflation. Powell reinforced his implicit plea to end the tariff war by repeating his warnings during the Q&A session. For example, he emphasized that “given the scope and scale of the tariffs…certainly the risk to higher inflation, higher unemployment have increased.” As a result, the Fed “won’t see further progress toward our goals, but we might see a delay in that.”

To add credibility to the concerns, Powell referenced the consensus (emphasis mine): “If you look at where forecasters are, they’re all forecasting an increase in inflation.” Without admitting he fears the potential of a recession, Powell followed up by referencing “forecasts of weakening in the economy and some have recession forecast.”

Thus, if Powell was in charge of trade policy, he would not go down the current path of large tariff increases. The risks to inflation and of a weaker economy – aka stagflation – are too great.

These admonishments are made more remarkable given the on-going (and one-way) spat that President Trump has with Powell. Trump now calls the Fed Chair “too late Powell”. Trump piled on by calling Powell a fool after the latest stall on rate cuts. I suspect Trump sees the hidden messages in Powell’s commentary.

Waiting As Leverage

Given the standoff in risks, the Fed has no choice but to sit on the sidelines of policy. Firstly, the trade policies are uncertain and in flux. During the current 90-day pause, anything can happen, including a sudden collapse in the ceasefire or another 90-day pause to avoid all-out economic warfare. Once these uncertainties clear up, the Fed next must wait to see impact from the policies before it can venture to take action.

Yet, I think the Fed would be cutting rates if not for the tariff risks. During the Q&A, Powell let slip that the Fed could have been late in cutting rates last year: “I wouldn’t say that what we did last fall was at all preemptive. If anything, it was a little late.” Ironically, the tariff risks will definitely make the Fed late again. By the time the dust settles enough for the Fed to be confident in more rate cuts, the economy could be deep in the throes of weakness.

Still, there is an interesting angle in the Fed’s insistence on waiting. The U.S.’s massive budget deficits need to be financed at lower rates. This more favorable financing likely needs the assistance of the Fed, whether by coaxing the long-end of the bond market to come down with “follow the leader” federal fund rate cuts or something more direct like “Operation Twist.” The longer higher rates persist, the harder it will be for the U.S. to take major fiscal action like extending the massive tax cuts from 2017. Powell has insisted since the first pause on rate cuts that the Fed can afford to wait. In the latest meeting, Powell further emphasized the Fed can afford to wait. I counted 21 times Powell used the word “wait” or “await”, 3 times Powell referenced no need to “hurry”, and another 4 times Powell insisted on exercising patience. I see a Fed in stagflation planning mode when Powell insists “for the time being, we are well positioned to wait for greater clarity before considering any adjustments to our policy stance.”

The message to the White House? Provide clarity post haste. All this waiting is the Federal Reserve’s way of exercising leverage while disavowing interest in advising on policy.

Markets React: The Dollar, Gold, and Bond Yields

After the Federal Reserve’s statement, the U.S. dollar strengthened, gold weakened, and long-term bond yields went higher for the rest of the week.

The U.S. dollar index (DXY) is still rebounding off a 3-year low. So for now I am assuming that the dollar’s strength for the rest of the week was a residual from this bounce from “oversold conditions”. Currency traders are likely waiting for the next dramatic tariff headlines to resume selling the dollar. (I currently hold a mix of long and short dollar bets). The weekly chart below shows that at the peak of the tariff trauma and drama that the dollar index reached a level last seen in March, 2022.

Gold is even more intriguing. The SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) went on a near parabolic run for a week and a half in April. Such runs usually come to climactic ends. In GLD’s case, a bearish engulfing topping pattern signaled the end of the run. GLD attempted a rebound from support at its 20-day moving average (DMA) (the dotted line below), but it stopped cold right at its all-time high. Fed day brought GLD right back down to its 20DMA support. I suspect this support will eventually give way as the Fed’s latest insistence on patience translates into a slightly lower enthusiasm in buying gold as a hedge against a Fed forced to cut rates right into the teeth of tariff-driven inflationary pressures. Waning enthusiasm is likely only worth a test of uptrending 50DMA support (the red line).

Long-term rates have chopped around since December. However, based on the “heavy” technicals for iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT), rates look poised to head higher at some point. TLT is just one more bout of economic chaos away from a fresh swoosh downward. The lows of the year coincided with levels last seen in November, 2023.

Stuck Until Further Notice

By the time of the next Fed meeting in June, we should have a better idea about the success or lack thereof for the 90-day tariff pause. The pressure will only increase on Powell to speak clarity into monetary policy. If more economic and sentiment indicators are flagging increasing stagflationary pressures while trade policy remains uncertain, I expect Powell to get more strident in his warnings (in Powell’s mild-mannered way of course). In the meantime, the stock market looks poised to join the Federal Reserve in getting stuck. The S&P 500 (SPY) is in a cliffhanger trading right below 200DMA resistance for the month of May.

Be careful out there!

The post Powell’s (Not So) Hidden Plea to End the U.S.’s Tariff War appeared first on Inflation Watch.

Source: April 2025 Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey, Federal Reserve Bank Philadelphia

At the same time economic activity fell off a cliff, prices paid accelerated higher. A steady uptrend in prices paid was in place since last year, but in April they jumped to levels last seen in July, 2022. After spiking in January, the prices received flattened out. So the good news, for now, is that firms in aggregate are not passing along the surge in prices paid. Either firms are facing the reality of a loss in pricing power in a softening economic environment, and/or they are trying to wait out the current economic chaos. Either way, the underlying stagflationary pressures are roiling just under the surface for the manufacturing sector.

Note that since these measures are diffusion indices (see definition in the above chart), the magnitude of these effects is not visible. Still, given policymakers closely watch these economic surveys to inform policy, the stagflationary signals are sure to bleed out into monetary policy.

The Fed Trap

Based on the speeches from members of the Federal Reserve, the stagflationary signals are already bleeding into monetary policy. For example, concerns about stagflation appeared in Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s answers to questions in an interview at the Economic Club of Chicago last week.

“the administration…is implementing significant policy changes and particularly trade now is the focus and the effects of that are likely to move us away from our goals. So unemployment is likely to go up as the economy slows in all likelihood and inflation is likely to go up as tariffs find their way and some part of those tariffs come to be paid by the public. So that’s the strong likelihood…”

This economic bind has the Fed trapped between inflation and economic weakness. For now, all the Fed can do is hope for the best. Hope as monetary policy came through as Powell continued: “…my hope is that we’ll get through this and get back…we’ll be moving away from those goals [of maximum employment and price stability] probably for the balance of this year and then or at least not making any progress and then we’ll resume that progress as we can.”

The Fed is clearly not thinking about responding to the current economic chaos with price cuts. Powell insisted that “our role is to make sure that this will be a one-time increase in prices and not something that turns into an ongoing inflation process.” The Fed cannot contain higher prices and higher inflation expectations with rate cuts. Thus, the Fed will likely sit on its hands as long as possible in the face of weakening employment. I expect the Fed to resort to creative “Fedspeak” in lieu of action in the hopes stagflationary pressures will wind down on their own.

A GTIP Dip

Three weeks ago I made the case for buying the Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) as one way of meeting the investing challenge of a stagflationary environment. GTIP fell soon after that as long-term bond yields suddenly soared with waning confidence in the U.S. economy and the U.S. dollar. I used this period to accumulate GTIP at lower prices since I do not foresee long-term yields going much higher absent an extreme crisis of confidence. GTIP will get its next big test when April’s CPI rolls out next month. Will it demonstrate businesses restraining from passing along tariffs to end consumers? Will it warn of resurgent inflationary pressures? The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s April 2025 Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey suggests GTIP has tailwinds.

The Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) briefly dropped toward the bottom of its recent range.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long GTIP

The post An Early Look At Stagflationary Pressures appeared first on Inflation Watch.