Discussion about this post

User's avatar
The Watchman's avatar

I know the feeling of having six sub sections on war, lately. I have always had four major subsections that I link articles in on my website : THE BIG PICTURE, NEWS, ECONOMIC NEWS, and SURVIVAL, PREPAREDNESS AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY.

With all the wars going on I could easily expand to 10 subsections. Linking your article tomorrow @ https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/

And as usual, it will be in the economic section!!

Expand full comment
RRMM's avatar

As much as I despise the analogy, let's stick to airplanes.

1) A hard landing would have been a deep recession and higher-longer interest rates to bring down inflation (leave deficit spending out of this!)

2) A soft landing would have been a minor, inconsequential recession or no recession, while inflation magically came down to target.

3) a no landing is no recession, the most robust economy ever in dreams or reality, and maybe just a tiny bit of pesky inflation—super equitable, fair, even-handed economic comeback with no losers.

With "No Landing," we fly at 30,000 feet until the plane runs out of fuel and comes crashing down to earth. But Lyndsay Graham and Mitch McConnell are salivating over the chance to drop some bombs, so they are happy.

Larry Krugeman would chastise me for not seeing how equitable everything is. BTFD, idiot.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts