First some discussion (cntrl+f and search for 'the basics' to skip to the tl;dr) The prediction that the dollar would strengthen as everyone dumps everything else and flees to the least bad option, has already begun. Thats why we're seeing inflation slowing at the moment: weakening in competing currencies. But as this happens, those nations resorting to using their USD reserves will be sending those dollars to the u.s. because the main alternative is the sino-chinese economic sphere. They'll get their exports here, especially weapons and fuel and food, which will momentarily lift our economy and wages domestically (either through a slowing of inflation thanks to a strengthening dollar, or a rise in wages to compensate for inflation to begin with). Unfortunately theres an inflection point where on-shorting of global foreign-held usd reserves causes an inversion, and once again starts to drive inflation. To deal with this the banks will have to implement negative rates (bail-ins, perhaps disguised as cyberattacks, shutdowns, bankruptcies, etc), or taxes and inflation (cost of living) will have to rise tremendously to keep this money out of consumer markets. If I'm correct, that the u.s. government is co-opted by foreign adversaries, then what they will do is raise interest rates signficantly, at the worst time, right as everyone is convinced that can **never** happen--effectively nullifying the bail-ins or anything the domestic financial industry might do to compensate. Lots and lots of bankruptcies will result, forcing a firesale of mergers and acquisitions, consolidating economic control even further. We will see 50% inflation. If we don't count service jobs as part of GDP, because service jobs don't lead to savings, investments, long term education, home purchases, saving and investment for private property, or credit building, and thus that industry isn't a viable long-term model for growth, then my theory is that unemployment tends to track inflation by 0.5%-1% for every percentage point of inflation. This comports with the understanding that as corporate welfare (just another variation of oligarchy) drives income inequality between the various classes, and for every so many percentages of inequality between them, you see a comparable rise in unserviceable debt rolled forward, as people make up for lost income by borrowing 'from the future', or else you see inflation which drives up wages to compensate. Now, if debt is driving GDP, and we pay off the debt with the differences between labor cost and inflation, then inflation has to increase to compensate for rising wages, and wages have to increase to drive labor participation (or you have to import the entire third world). But labor participation is down because too many people are scared of corona, or demoralized by wokeism and insane corporate middle-management practices and looking at the future, concluding why bother when they can live on the dole and the dole pays better than make-work with no future? And all of this relies on debt, backed by the cost to extract a barrel of oil. We could drive it down with investment, but ESG and the u.s. agenda is to undermine the very premise. Which is why I say we're co-opted by some foreign adversaries, because this is clearly self-sabotage. So instead, debt has to increase to compensate for the lack of production at the *foundation* of the economy, which is oil. It's not that we don't have the oil, it's that we're not investing in it as heavily any more. Inflation as always, is a better measure of the blackbox that is the decision makers behind *either* oil pricing, or investment and interest rates. THE BASICS I suspect that on a long enough timeline, inflation tracks interest and taxation. And heres why. So, in a manipulated, or centralized economy (say where every bank is too big to fail), the formula I use is 100-(inflation+tax) = interest.` ` Where in this model 'inflation' is a manipulated number, used to impose *costs* on competitors and *reward* regime allies, and paper over the *real* reason for costs, which is taxes (going to pay a larger managerial or bureaucratic class to run the economy and nation), and the policies that support them, i.e. "inflation". Graft. Whatever you want to call it. And this actually works in reverse as well, to explain why zero percent interest actually blows up economies. Because if interest is 0% in a manipulated economy (command economy, oligarchy, heavy monopolization, totalitarianism, etc), then inflation and taxes *must* be near 100% (or even more, in the case of negative interest rates), following from the formula I already mentioned `100-(inflation+tax) = interest`. If it helps, think of 'inflation' here as "ten percent to the big guy", carbon taxes, spending 100 million dollars on 'environmental studies' to build a road or desalinization plant, and the combined effect of **tens of thousands** of similar policies and laws. Now if you look at a non-manipulated market, your inflation rate formula would be: `100-interest = inflation' and the reason for that is, the less investment you have, the less production you have. And the less production you have, the less demand is satisfied. The whole basis of a capitalist economy is that theres no real *general* method to predict market demand. So you end up with a bunch of investors that have different ideas, all taking on different levels of investment risk, as they try to predict what the market will need in the future. And many of them fail, but some of them succeed, and thats actually where your inflation comes from. If you have 0% interest, because no one is investing, or all the investments being made have negative returns (which is more and more likely the smaller your economy is, think for example economies that don't manage risk because they're based on a single product, like oil, and are therefore vulnerable to a downturn), you have misallocation everywhere. Basically you have too many bad investors in this case. Whereas, if your interest rates are really high, like 90% (a number I picked out of a hat), assuming your market isn't manipulated, and you don't have a bunch of TBTF banks and hedges, you end up with really *low* inflation because **production is meeting demand**. And this is because economies with lots of production have lots of excess funds for investment, and speculation, as more dollars chase more ideas, failing more often, but also increasing the discovery of high-yield industries and products. Everyone wants to invest in something thats a 'sure thing', that has high returns, and many of these fail, but some of them succeed wildly. This also explains the occasional tulip-mania that overtakes economies that run hot. The means to fix the global economy is therefore to either massively decrease 'inflation' (regulations and burdensome graft-based policies), a "total slaughter" of the policy-environment, or cut taxes and obligations supporting the managerial class and the welfare-voter-pipleine class, massively. NOTES The '100' here is actually another variable, p=production. It is a value that exists in the present, not in the future, so it can't be used to measure growth, only economic shrinkage. Thats because gains technically exist in the future. Likewise interest. Interest is a *present* guarantee on *future* gains, which is why manipulated economies primarily focus on interest or yields as their final measure of growth. Hence "production - (inflation+taxes) = interest" While non-manipulated economies, (like pre-1913) focus on, and attempt to fight *inflation*, because inflation is an indicator of mal-investment or lack of investment, reflected by the formula: production - interest = inflation (theres no tax variable here, because at 0%, the ideal case, it vanishes as a variable). And thats my theory in a nutshell. Edit: Note 1: The reason in the non-manipulated market that interest is *subtracted* from production (which is the theoretical maximum useful output of an economy, assuming some standardized basket of goods), is because interest takes *productive output* in the *here and now* and lays it aside, assuming a risk that it doesn't pan out. So high interest can actually be as bad as low interest under certain conditions. And because production is a variable in the present, while inflation is related to interest (promises *now* on yields in the *future*), its why you can't run the formula backward (inflation+interest) to get current production growth. Because of this little detail, it would *still* not tell you if what you are doing in the present is the correct course to yield the promised returns of a given interest rate. The more you subtract from production output for *investment* (potential future yields on production output), the less goods or production output are available to meet demand *today*, raising inflation. Which is why the formula is what is it. Obviously of course there is demand *created* by investment in industry itself (like concrete demand for building new factories for example), but this actually offers an argument for why *investment driven demand* should be treated separately from *all other demand and production*.