Trump might love inflation. Consumers feel pain. Experts say things. This is financial journalism in 2026, where we pretend a politician's emotional relationship with macroeconomic indicators matters more than your grocery bill going up because two countries you can't find on a map decided to lob missiles at each other's oil fields.
The Middle East conflict raised prices. Shocked? You shouldn't be. Every Middle East conflict raises prices. It's the most predictable market event since retail traders discovering options and immediately losing their rent money. But here we are, treating it like breaking news because Trump said something about loving inflation, which he probably didn't even say, or if he did, he meant something else, or if he didn't mean something else, who gives a f*ck what any politician thinks about your cereal costing twelve dollars.
Experts weighed in. They always do. They get paid to explain why your wallet is lighter using words like geopolitical and supply chain disruption when the real answer is simpler: things cost more now because things always cost more eventually. That's inflation. It goes up. Sometimes faster. Sometimes slower. Your technical indicators don't predict it. Your fundamental analysis doesn't stop it. Your diversified portfolio doesn't hedge it.
Consumers struggle to make ends meet. Valid concern. But connecting that struggle to whether Trump loves or hates inflation is the kind of financial media brain rot that makes day traders look like f*cking Warren Buffett. The man could love inflation, hate inflation, or marry inflation in a ceremony officiated by Jerome Powell and it wouldn't change the fact that your gas costs more because someone bombed a refinery.
Chart the correlation between presidential affection for economic metrics and your actual purchasing power. You'll get noise. Pure, beautiful, tradeable noise that separates you from your money faster than a 0DTE call on a meme stock.
Photo by The Now Time on Unsplash
Leave a Comment