In May of this year, gasoline prices spiked to$4.50 a gallon, a 50% increase since the war in Iran began. According to areport from the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics), consumer prices rose by 3.8% from April 2025 to April 2026, the highest inflation rate over the last 3 years. According to the same report, energy prices rose by 17.9 percent, largely driven by the current hostilities in the Middle East. Amidst all this, consumer sentiment has hit anew low: (Source: University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers) Something is clearly wrong with the economy, and consumers can feel it; however, it doesn’t look like any recession we have a textbook for. The unemployment rate is not high, and inflation, while higher than the target rate of 2%, is far from out of hand. And yet, according to the well-watched Michigan Survey of Consumers, consumer sentiment on the economy is at its worst in over 60 years. America is not in a recession, but perhaps we are facing something worse. Have we entered a period of stagflation? What Stagflation Actually Means Normally, unemployment and inflation have an inverse relationship. When the economy is growing fast, more money is circulating in the economy, creating more jobs as prices rise. A slowing economy leads to less spending and job cuts, as price inflation falls. When inflation rises at an unsustainable rate, meaning the economy is running too hot, the Federal Reserve increases interest rates to slow down spending. However, in the case of a contracting economy, the Federal Reserve cuts rates, and Congress spends more. This is the Keynesian framework, which suggests that the economy is usually pulling in one direction, growth or contraction, and the government can act as a counterbalance to maintain stability. Stability, however, is not always good, especially when it leads to stagnation, or even worse, “stagflation”. When unemployment and inflation go up together, the normal Keynesian framework and levers of monetary and fiscal policy are less effective. Have we entered one of these periods, the last of which was in the 1980s? The current numbers tell a certain story. According to the BLS report cited earlier, consumer prices rose 3.8% year-over-year, well over the 2% mark that the Fed targets as the natural rate of inflation. The unemployment rate is 4.3%, not historically high, but it is not low either, compared to 2023, when the unemployment rate was only 3.4%. Furthermore, labor force growth is projected to be “near zero” this year, suggesting a sluggish economy. However, the historical benchmark for stagflation is critical. The last notable case of stagflation happened between the 1960s and the 1980s, where inflation peaked at 13.5% with the unemployment rate pushing above 10 percent. Today’s inflation is barely a third of that 1980s peak, and the unemployment rate is not much higher than the pre-COVID-19 level, when the economy was booming in 2019. Therefore, calling the current sluggish job market “stagflation” is a stretch. A much more honest description is stagnation, where the structural conditions point to a stable, yet weak job market; possibly in a state of transition amidst a set of disruptions. A Few Unique Factors To Flag While America has not yet entered an era of stagflation, there are a few headwinds to consider: Tariffs are causing increased prices and reduced demand. Even after the Supreme Court struck down many of the Trump Administration tariffs,the U.S. average effective tariff rate now stands at 11 percent, the highest since 1943 (excluding 2025, where it was even higher). Tariffs are inflationary because they raise the cost of trade, as imported goods now incur a higher tax to come into this country for consumption. Not only does this mean consumers pay more, but American businesses also lose out on exporting goods, as other nations impose retaliatory tariffs. Based on a counterfactual analysis by theYale Budget Lab, we can see how the Trump Administration’s tariffs deviated from the trend line and increased the price of goods: Had the new tariffs not been imposed, according to The Budget Lab, inflation would have trended downward (shown via the dotted lines) from January 2025 onward. Of course, we cannot take this evidence to be conclusive, as this is based on a probability model; however, when combined with the economic theory, this data tells a compelling story. In the long-run, however, the result is reduced consumer spending, which risks a deflationary effect and a reduction of job growth. In this way, tariffs have a dual effect: creating rising prices before creating a negative demand shock, which is the case in a contracting economy. The Iran War is, in my view, causing a bigger shock. The average price for a gallon of gasoline has risen to $4.50 as of May, a 50% increase since the war started after the U.S. and Israel struck Iran in late February. The restricted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for 20 percent of global oil supply, is a point of great concern for the global economy and the U.S., the longer this war goes on. Here, the effect is more obvious when it comes to increasing prices, as gas prices are a method of calculating inflation. When gas prices go up, energy prices go up, and inflation is impacted significantly, leading to the highest year over year inflation rate in 3 years. AI-driven labor is a slower-moving shock. However, the way I would frame it is to say that it represents a technological shift. Recent graduates and young professionals, like myself, are being affected, with a decline in entry-level jobs by 35% since January 2023. On the one hand, AI investment is inflationary due to the productivity boom it brings and the increased spending on energy to maintain data centers. AI is intriguing because there is an argument both ways in terms of how it will affect the economy. There is a fear that as AI develops and eliminates entry-level jobs, the pathway for success for entry level candidates
By Vaibhav Sinha
Social media has turned millions of Americans into journalists of their own private worlds. We document our days, render instant judgments on whatever national mess is unfolding, and fire off our opinions with the breezy authority that used to belong to people who actually got paid for it. And we do most of this without editors, without real time to think, and usually without any meaningful accountability. The whole thing throws a strange, sometimes queasy light on what journalism and writing even are anymore. At bottom, you cannot help wondering: has it all become mostly a contest of egos? Who can express themselves most persuasively, or frame the chaos of the moment through their own lens, all while walking away feeling seen, validated, and maybe even a little superior. 1 Long before any of us were doomscrolling, Andrei Tarkovsky was already poking at these nerves in his film Stalker. There is this character known only as the Writer— cynical, exhausted, full of self-loathing — who ends up on a harrowing trip with two other men into the mysterious Zone an area that supposedly grants each individual their deepest desire. At one point he basically admits it outright: “A man writes because he is tormented, because he doubts. He needs to constantly prove to himself and the others that he’s worth something.” For him, writing is not some noble creative burst. It feels more like a chronic condition, almost shameful, something he keeps returning to even when it hurts. That line lands differently now, does it not? It used to be mostly artists and serious writers who carried that private torment. Now we are all carrying it, every day, in public. Every personal essay, every viral thread, every hot take on politics or culture is, at least partly, trying to prove we matter; to the algorithm, to strangers, and most of all to ourselves. We have all become versions of that weary Writer, wandering around in our digital Zone, hoping the right combination of words and timing will finally quiet the doubt for a minute. 2 This hits especially hard in the midst of the country’s current discourse. With the 2026 midterm elections looming, regular people and independent creators are often shaping the story as much as big outlets. Trust in traditional media has fallen to a new low of 28 percent, according to recent Gallup polling. Citizen journalists sometimes fill in gaps that legacy rooms miss or will not touch. 3 Nietzsche once said, “Creating, that is the great salvation from suffering. But for the creator to appear, suffering itself is needed, and much transformation.” Social media promises creation without suffering. Just post, refresh, get rewarded. It short circuits the hard part and leaves us performing versions of depth instead of actually wrestling with it. At the heart of all this is the ethics of algorithmic curation, that invisible, slightly ominous hand deciding what millions of us see. Platforms are built to maximize engagement: likes, comments, rage, time spent. And that logic naturally favors whatever is loudest, most emotional, most polarizing. Accuracy and nuance often loses out to sensationalism. 4 A major 2026 study published in Nature found that users exposed to X’s algorithmic feed rather than a chronological timeline experienced measurable shifts in political attitudes on issues including immigration, crime, and foreign policy. Some of those shifts lingered even after users reverted back to chronological feeds. The effect was subtle, ambient, almost atmospheric. The feed did not argue explicitly. It altered emotional emphasis. It changed what felt urgent, threatening, humiliating, or culturally dominant. That may be the most unsettling aspect of algorithmic systems: they do not simply shape what we think about, but the emotional texture through which we interpret reality itself. 5 One starts wondering who is really responsible when the machine quietly reshapes how we see our country and each other right before an election. Kierkegaard once said that “wherever the crowd is, there is untruth.” He believed real truth lives with the individual, thinking and choosing alone. Social media has the opposite effect; it manufactures crowds instantly and rewards whatever or whoever gets the strongest reaction. We end up reacting more to the polished, filtered, and sometimes AI-altered version of events rather than the messy reality underneath. Stalker does not offer easy comfort. It shows the Writer confronting his own smallness and fragility inside that strange, dangerous place. Our version of the Zone is this vast, addictive American internet, beautiful in its possibilities, treacherous in its hidden currents. As we argue about democracy, truth, elections, and what kind of country we are becoming, it seems worth asking whether all this frantic self-expression— steered by algorithms — is genuinely deepening our shared conversation. Or maybe it is mostly a louder, faster way for all of us to soothe our restless egos. As we debate the health of our democracy, the integrity of our elections, and the quality of our public square, we must ask whether this explosion of self-expression is truly enriching our nation, or primarily serving as a faster, louder way to soothe our collective egos. 6 The tension between hope and disillusionment may be the most honest ground we can occupy as writers, as citizens, and as participants in the shared life of the nation. Works Cited [1] Pew Research Center. “Social Media and News Fact Sheet.” Pew Research Center, 17 Jan. 2025. [2] Tarkovsky, Andrei, director. Stalker. Mosfilm, 1979. [3] Gallup. “Trust in Media at New Low of 28% in U.S.” Gallup News, 2 Oct. 2025. [4] Hastuti, H. “Algorithmic Influence and Media Legitimacy.” Frontiers in Communication, 2025. [5] Gauthier, Germain, et al. “The Political Effects of X’s Feed Algorithm.” Nature, vol. 652, 2026, pp. 416–423. [6] Bruns, Axel. Are Filter Bubbles Real? Polity Press, 2019. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Erol Yilmaz
The American economy is once again under pressure as inflation continues to rise, putting financial strain on millions of households across the country. In the 2024 presidential election, many voters supported promises of economic reform and relief from the rising cost of living. But two years later, inflation is becoming one of the biggest concerns for ordinary Americans yet again. According to the latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation climbed to 3.8% in April, driven largely by higher fuel, grocery, housing, and travel costs. Analysts warn that while the numbers may not yet match the historic inflation spikes seen after the COVID-19 pandemic, the current trend is alarming because it is closely tied to global instability and supply chain disruptions rather than domestic consumer demand alone. Inflation occurs when the prices of goods and services rise over time and reduce the purchasing power of money. For average Americans, this means everyday essentials such as gasoline, rent, food, and airline tickets cost significantly more than they did just a year ago. Families across the country are adjusting budgets, reducing discretionary spending, and delaying major purchases. Some of the biggest driving forces behind the latest inflation surge are the growing instability in the Middle East and the disruptions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes. Nearly a fifth of the world’s oil passes through the narrow waterway. Fears surrounding supply interruptions have sent global energy prices sharply higher. Economists say these rising oil prices are now affecting almost every sector of the economy from transportation and manufacturing to grocery distribution. The impact is especially visible at gas stations across the United States. According to the AAA, the national average gasoline price has climbed to around $4.50 per gallon—the highest it has been since July 2022. Rising fuel costs are also increasing airline ticket prices and shipping expenses, which further contribute to a broader inflationary pressure upon the economy. President Donald Trump has repeatedly described the price increases as temporary. He argues that the administration’s economic strategy will stabilize markets over time. However, many economists are warning that geopolitical uncertainty and prolonged global conflicts could make recovery slower and more difficult than anticipated. At the same time, the White House is also facing growing pressure over trade policy and international diplomacy. On Thursday, President Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing for a high-stakes summit focused on trade, artificial intelligence, tariffs, and global security concerns. The meeting occurs at a critical moment considering that inflation, energy instability, and tensions in the Middle East continue to affect both global markets and public confidence. Reports suggest that both countries are discussing possible tariff reductions and renewed trade cooperation involving energy and agricultural products. U.S. officials indicated that China may consider purchasing more American oil as Beijing seeks alternatives to unstable Middle Eastern supply routes. The Trump-Xi meeting is being closely watched by global investors because the United States and China remain the world’s two largest economies. Any improvement in trade relations could help reduce market uncertainty and stabilize supply chains. However, analysts caution that no major breakthrough is expected immediately, particularly given ongoing disagreements over Taiwan, technology restrictions, and tariff policies. The inflation crisis is not limited to the United States. Around the world, governments are struggling with the economic consequences of rising energy prices and geopolitical tensions. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently urged citizens to reduce fuel and cooking oil consumption and avoid unnecessary foreign travel as global economic pressure intensifies. European economies, especially Germany’s, are also facing renewed energy inflation due to unstable oil supply chains and high import costs. Meanwhile, Japan continues to struggle with rising import prices caused by a weaker yen and expensive fuel imports. Countries like Canada and Australia are also battling persistent housing and grocery inflation despite tighter monetary policies and higher interest rates. The result is growing public frustration across multiple advanced economies. Citizens increasingly feel that wages are not sufficient to keep up with living costs. In the United States, inflation has also become deeply political. Supporters of President Trump argue that global conflicts and energy disruptions are largely outside Washington’s control. Critics, however, say aggressive tariff policies, international tensions, and commercial uncertainty have contributed to market instability and higher prices for consumers. Financial markets are now watching the Federal Reserve closely for possible responses. Some analysts believe the central bank may delay interest rate cuts if inflation continues rising while others fear prolonged inflation could eventually slow economic growth and further weaken consumer confidence. Despite differing political views, economists generally agree on one point: global stability plays a critical role in controlling inflation. Wars, trade disputes, supply chain disruptions, and energy insecurity can quickly push prices higher across the global economy. As Americans continue facing higher grocery bills, expensive fuel, and increased housing costs, many are beginning to question the attainability of the economic recovery that was promised. The coming months—which will hopefully bring the outcome of negotiations between the U.S. and China and developments in the Middle East—may determine whether inflation begins to cool or becomes an even greater burden on households worldwide.
By Susmita Majumder
Follow Us