More than 50 countries have reached out to the President to begin tariff negotiations

[DBCowboy]

Bottom line?

We were sucking fecal matter through a straw under leftist policies.

Now we can do better.

[Oldcarpy2]

Bottom line?

We were sucking fecal matter through a straw under leftist policies.

Now we can do better.

Yep.  Now you can do away with the straw and go direct....

[DBCowboy]

Yep.  Now you can do away with the straw and go direct....

YMMV

But in my golden years, I'm doing better under Trump than Biden.

[putnam6]

Bottom line?

We were sucking fecal matter through a straw under leftist policies.

Now we can do better.

Yep... I've been in business long enough, even though I lean right, if a Democrat came through with a killer economy, it would overshadow the other issues I may or may not have.

Barry is a good example, but I got curious and asked Grok
 Since the 70s, which political party's Congress and President has had the fewest years under inflation, I thought it would pretty much be evenly split instead... 
 

Since the 1970s, unified Republican control (presidency and Congress) has been associated with the fewest years of high inflation, with only 1 out of 6 years exceeding 4% and an average inflation rate of ~2.3%. This is evident in George W. Bush’s 2003–2007 term and Trump’s 2017–2019 term. Unified Democratic control saw 6 out of 10 years with high inflation, driven by Carter’s stagflation and Biden’s post-COVID spike, though Clinton and Obama’s periods were low-inflation. Divided government had mixed results, with high inflation in the 1970s but lower rates later. External factors like oil shocks, Federal Reserve actions, and global events often outweigh party-specific policies in driving inflation.
 
To determine which political party’s control of Congress and the presidency has been associated with the fewest years of inflation since the 1970s, we need to analyze historical inflation data alongside periods of party control. Inflation is typically measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) year-over-year change, with periods of high inflation often defined as rates exceeding 2–3%, though any positive rate indicates inflation. The question focuses on the “fewest years under inflation,” which I interpret as periods with lower inflation rates or fewer years of significantly elevated inflation, as no administration since the 1970s has been entirely free of inflation. I’ll examine unified government (when the same party controls both Congress and the presidency) and divided government, using average inflation rates and notable high-inflation periods, drawing on historical data and economic analyses.
Methodology and Data Sources

• Inflation Data: I’ll use average year-over-year CPI inflation rates by presidential administration, sourced from reliable economic data like the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and analyses from Investopedia, Wikipedia, and other economic reports.
  
• Party Control: I’ll consider periods of unified Democratic or Republican control (presidency and both chambers of Congress) and divided government, focusing on post-1970 administrations (Nixon through Biden).
  
• Time Frame: From 1970 to 2025, covering presidents from Nixon (1969–1974) to Biden (2021–present, up to 2025).
  
• Definition of “Fewest Years Under Inflation”: Since inflation is almost always positive, I’ll focus on periods with lower average inflation rates or fewer years of high inflation (e.g., above 4–5%), as high inflation is often the economic and political concern.
  

Inflation and Party Control Since the 1970s
Below is an overview of inflation rates by presidential administration, alongside party control of Congress, based on available data. Inflation rates are sourced primarily from Investopedia and supplemented by other analyses. Congressional control data comes from historical records of House and Senate majorities.
1. Richard Nixon (Republican, 1969–1974)

• Average Inflation Rate: 6.3% (1969–1974)
  
• Congress Control:
  • 1969–1974: Democratic House and Senate (divided government).
    
• Inflation Context: The 1970s saw stagflation, driven by oil shocks (1973 OPEC embargo), Vietnam War spending, and loose monetary policy. Inflation spiked to 5.5% in 1969 and 11.0% by 1974.
  
• Years of High Inflation: Most years saw inflation above 5%, peaking in 1974.
  

2. Gerald Ford (Republican, 1974–1977)

• Average Inflation Rate: 8.0% (second highest among post-1970 presidents)
  
• Congress Control:
  • 1974–1977: Democratic House and Senate (divided government).
    
• Inflation Context: Continued stagflation from Nixon’s era, with inflation peaking at 9.2% in 1975. Ford’s “Whip Inflation Now” campaign was largely ineffective.
  
• Years of High Inflation: All years had inflation above 5%.
  

3. Jimmy Carter (Democrat, 1977–1981)

• Average Inflation Rate: 9.85% (highest among post-1970 presidents)
  
• Congress Control:
  • 1977–1981: Democratic House and Senate (unified Democratic control).
    
• Inflation Context: Stagflation persisted, exacerbated by the 1979 energy crisis. Inflation hit 13.3% in 1979 and 12.5% in 1980. Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman in 1979, whose tight monetary policy began curbing inflation but led to a recession.
  
• Years of High Inflation: All four years saw inflation above 7%, peaking at 13.3%.
  

4. Ronald Reagan (Republican, 1981–1989)

• Average Inflation Rate: 4.3%
  
• Congress Control:
  • 1981–1987: Republican Senate, Democratic House (divided government).
    
  • 1987–1989: Democratic House and Senate (divided government).
    
• Inflation Context: Volcker’s high interest rates (reappointed by Reagan) reduced inflation from 10.4% in 1981 to 3.2% by 1983, ushering in the “Great Moderation.” Inflation remained moderate (3–4%) for the rest of Reagan’s term.
  
• Years of High Inflation: Early years (1981–1982) had inflation above 5%, but it dropped significantly by 1983.
  

5. George H.W. Bush (Republican, 1989–1993)

• Average Inflation Rate: 4.3%
  
• Congress Control:
  • 1989–1993: Democratic House and Senate (divided government).
    
• Inflation Context: Inflation was stable, ranging from 4.1% to 5.4%, with no major spikes. The 1990–1991 recession was mild and not driven by inflation.
  
• Years of High Inflation: Most years hovered around 4–5%, with no extreme spikes.
  

6. Bill Clinton (Democrat, 1993–2001)

• Average Inflation Rate: 2.6%
  
• Congress Control:
  • 1993–1995: Democratic House and Senate (unified Democratic control).
    
  • 1995–2001: Republican House and Senate (divided government).
    
• Inflation Context: Inflation was low and stable, ranging from 2.3% to 3.4%, benefiting from the Great Moderation, technological productivity gains, and stable oil prices.
  
• Years of High Inflation: No years exceeded 4% inflation.
  

7. George W. Bush (Republican, 2001–2009)

• Average Inflation Rate: 2.48%
  
• Congress Control:
  • 2001–2003: Republican House, Senate briefly Democratic (2001–2002), then Republican (unified Republican control 2003–2007).
    
  • 2007–2009: Democratic House and Senate (divided government).
    
• Inflation Context: Inflation was low, dipping to 0.1% in 2008 during the Great Recession, with brief deflation in 2009. The 2008 financial crisis dominated economic concerns, not inflation.
  
• Years of High Inflation: Only 2005 (4.1%) exceeded 4%; most years were below 3%.
  

8. Barack Obama (Democrat, 2009–2017)

• Average Inflation Rate: 1.46% (lowest among post-1970 presidents)
  
• Congress Control:
  • 2009–2011: Democratic House and Senate (unified Democratic control).
    
  • 2011–2015: Republican House, Democratic Senate (divided government).
    
  • 2015–2017: Republican House and Senate (divided government).
    
• Inflation Context: Inflation remained low, recovering from 2009 deflation. The Great Recession recovery focused on unemployment, not inflation, which stayed below 2% most years.
  
• Years of High Inflation: No years exceeded 4%; most were below 2%.
  

9. Donald Trump (Republican, 2017–2021)

• Average Inflation Rate: 1.9%
  
• Congress Control:
  • 2017–2019: Republican House and Senate (unified Republican control).
    
  • 2019–2021: Democratic House, Republican Senate (divided government).
    
• Inflation Context: Inflation was low, ranging from 1.4% to 2.4%, supported by loose monetary policy and the 2018 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted 2020, but inflation remained low.
  
• Years of High Inflation: No years exceeded 4%.
  

10. Joe Biden (Democrat, 2021–present, up to 2025)

• Average Inflation Rate: 5.7% (through 2023)
  
• Congress Control:
  • 2021–2023: Democratic House and Senate (unified Democratic control).
    
  • 2023–2025: Republican House, Democratic Senate (divided government).
    
• Inflation Context: Inflation spiked to 9.1% in June 2022, a 40-year high, driven by pandemic-era supply chain disruptions, energy shocks from the Russia-Ukraine war, and stimulus spending (Trump’s CARES Act and Biden’s American Rescue Plan). Inflation fell to 3.0% by June 2024.
  
• Years of High Inflation: 2021–2022 saw inflation above 5%, peaking at 9.1%.
  

Analysis of Party Control and Inflation
To assess the “fewest years under inflation,” I’ll compare periods of unified party control and divided government, focusing on average inflation rates and years with high inflation (above 4–5%).
Unified Democratic Control

• Carter (1977–1981): 4 years, all with high inflation (7–13.3%). Average: 9.85%.
  
• Clinton (1993–1995): 2 years, no high inflation (2.7–3.0%). Average: ~2.8%.
  
• Obama (2009–2011): 2 years, no high inflation (0.3–1.6%). Average: ~1.0%.
  
• Biden (2021–2023): 2 years, both with high inflation (5–9.1%). Average: ~7.0%.
  
• Total: 10 years of unified Democratic control. Approximately 6 years had high inflation (>5%), with an overall average inflation rate around 5–6% (heavily influenced by Carter and Biden).
  

Unified Republican Control

• Bush (2003–2007): 4 years, one year with high inflation (4.1% in 2005). Average: ~2.5%.
  
• Trump (2017–2019): 2 years, no high inflation (1.9–2.4%). Average: ~2.1%.
  
• Total: 6 years of unified Republican control. Only 1 year had high inflation (>4%), with an overall average inflation rate around 2.3%.
  

Divided Government

• Nixon/Ford (1970–1977): 7 years, most with high inflation (5–9.2%). Average: ~7.0%.
  
• Reagan (1981–1989): 8 years, early years high (5–10.4%), later years low (3–4%). Average: 4.3%.
  
• Bush Sr. (1989–1993): 4 years, moderate inflation (4–5.4%). Average: 4.3%.
  
• Clinton (1995–2001): 6 years, no high inflation (2.3–3.4%). Average: ~2.5%.
  
• Bush Jr. (2001–2003, 2007–2009): 4 years, one year high (4.1% in 2005). Average: ~2.5%.
  
• Obama (2011–2017): 6 years, no high inflation (0.7–2.1%). Average: ~1.5%.
  
• Trump (2019–2021): 2 years, no high inflation (1.4–1.8%). Average: ~1.6%.
  
• Biden (2023–2025): 2 years (partial data), moderate inflation (~3–4%). Average: ~3.5%.
  
• Total: 39 years of divided government. Approximately 10–12 years had high inflation (>5%), with an average inflation rate varying widely (2–7% depending on the period).
  

Comparative Summary

• Unified Democratic Control:
  • Years: 10 total, ~6 with high inflation (>5%).
    
  • Average Inflation: ~5–6%, skewed by Carter’s 9.85% and Biden’s 5.7%.
    
  • Notable Periods: Carter’s term saw persistent high inflation due to stagflation and energy crises. Clinton and Obama had low inflation, but Biden’s early years saw a spike.
    
• Unified Republican Control:
  • Years: 6 total, ~1 with high inflation (>4%).
    
  • Average Inflation: ~2.3%, consistently low across Bush and Trump.
    
  • Notable Periods: Both Bush and Trump maintained low inflation, with only one year (2005) slightly above 4%.
    
• Divided Government:
  • Years: 39 total, ~10–12 with high inflation (>5%).
    
  • Average Inflation: Varies widely (2–7%), with high inflation concentrated in the 1970s and early 1980s (Nixon, Ford, early Reagan).
    
  • Notable Periods: The 1970s stagflation under divided government (Democratic Congress, Republican presidents) was a high-inflation era. Later periods (Clinton, Obama, Trump) saw lower inflation.
    

Key Findings

• Unified Republican Control has the fewest years of high inflation: Only 1 out of 6 years (2005, 4.1%) exceeded 4%, and the average inflation rate (~2.3%) is the lowest among the groups. Trump’s 2017–2019 and Bush’s 2003–2007 periods benefited from stable economic conditions and loose monetary policy.
  
• Unified Democratic Control has more years of high inflation: 6 out of 10 years, driven by Carter’s stagflation (4 years, 7–13.3%) and Biden’s post-COVID spike (2 years, 5–9.1%). However, Clinton and Obama’s periods were notably low-inflation.
  
• Divided Government has mixed results: High inflation dominated the 1970s (Nixon/Ford, early Reagan), but later periods (Clinton, Obama, Trump) were low-inflation. The average is skewed by the 1970s stagflation.
  
• External Factors: Inflation is heavily influenced by external shocks (oil crises, pandemics, wars) and Federal Reserve policy, not just party control. For example, Carter’s high inflation was exacerbated by oil shocks, while Volcker’s policies (initiated under Carter, continued under Reagan) curbed it. Biden’s inflation spike was driven by global supply chains and prior stimulus, not solely Democratic policies.
  

Additional Considerations

• Economic Research: Studies by Blinder and Watson (2016) note that inflation is slightly lower under Democrats on average since 1945, but it tends to rise under Democrats and fall under Republicans. This is less relevant for unified control since the 1970s, where Republicans have a clearer edge in low inflation.
  
• Divided Government Nuance: A PBS analysis suggests that inflation averaged 2 percentage points lower when a Democratic president faced a Republican Congress, indicating divided government can moderate inflation in some cases.
  
• Voter Perception: Inflation expectations are partisan, with Republicans expecting higher inflation under Democrats and vice versa, which may amplify perceptions of inflation beyond actual data.
  

[DBCowboy]

Yep... I've been in business long enough, even though I lean right, if a Democrat came through with a killer economy, it would overshadow the other issues I may or may not have.

Barry is a good example, but I got curious and asked Grok
 Since the 70s, which political party's Congress and President has had the fewest years under inflation, I thought it would pretty much be evenly split instead... 
 

The left is very effective at gaslighting

[putnam6]

The left is very effective at gaslighting

Which is supremely ironic because of all of the mileage the Clinton cabal got from just 4 little words 

[putnam6]

With Trump extending the deadline for Mexico, the administration got farther along than I thought they would with the trade deals. Mexico is huge for our industry, and Canada will be interesting...



Our industry is starting the new Spring 2026 Trade Markets soon, and the number of new samples over 2024 is up 22%. The first double-digit increase since before COVID, 

The leasing office says they have a 36% increase in booth space leased and a 27% increase in showroom space leased over last year. Thats the largest yearly increase since 2016. This includes new attendees
(38 new companies) and legacy companies leasing more space. This is a positive indicator, 6 new companies from Europe, 3 from Australia 

https://www.polsinelli.com/executive-ord...line-nears

Trump extends Mexico's deadline

July 31, 2025Updates
Multiple Trade Deals Reached as August 1 Deadline Nears 
Key Takeaways

• As the August 1 deadline approaches, the U.S. has reached trade deals with several countries that lower U.S. tariff rates in exchange for increased market access and investments benefiting U.S. industries.
  
• Countries such as the EU, Japan, and Indonesia agreed to major purchases, tariff reductions, and strategic investments while others like Vietnam and the Philippines offered full or partial tariff eliminations on U.S. goods.
  
• Several key trading partners, including India and China, have not yet reached agreements and face potential tariff increases if no deals are made.
  

Since President Trump extended the pause on country-specific reciprocal tariffs to August 1, 2025, and notified certain countries of an anticipated tariff increase absent a deal, the Administration has reached deals with several countries. The trade deals generally result in lower tariff rates for those countries and increased opportunities U.S. companies to export to those countries. In the meanwhile, other countries – including major U.S. trading partners – still face the risk of significantly increased tariff rates if there are no additional extensions for ongoing negotiations beyond August 1.
The country-specific tariff rates that reflect the trade deals reached so far as of July 30, 2025, can be found here. The country-specific tariff rates announced in early July can be found here. The country-specific tariff rates originally announced on April 2 can be found here.
The Administration has reached agreement with the following countries in connection with the country-specific reciprocal tariffs:
South Korea:  On July 30, President Trump announced that the United States has agreed to a trade deal with South Korea. Under the deal, goods imported from South Korea into the United States will be subject to a baseline 15 percent tariff rate while goods imported from the United States into South Korea will enter free of duty. According to President Trump, South Korea will invest $350 billion “owned and controlled by the United States” and purchase $100 billion worth of LNG or other energy products. In addition, President Trump announced that South Korea would be completely open to trade with the United States and accept American products including cars, trucks, and agricultural products.
European Union:  On July 27, the United States and the European Union (EU) announced a trade agreement, which would subject most imports from the EU to a baseline 15 percent tariff rate and the EU agreed to purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy and make new investments of $600 billion. While the 15 percent tariff is expected to cover products across sectors including automobiles, the applicability of the 15 percent tariff to pharmaceuticals could be impacted by the results of the ongoing Section 232 investigation of pharmaceuticals. As for metals, although the specific terms of the U.S.-EU deal need to be reviewed, it has been reported that Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum would remain at 50 percent although there appear to be ongoing negotiations regarding a potential quota or tariff rate quota.
Japan:  On July 22, the Administration reached an agreement with Japan on trade and investment. As a result of this deal, imports from Japan will be subject to a baseline 15 percent tariff rate and Japan agreed to invest $550 billion, directed by the United States, in the U.S. strategic industrial bases such as energy infrastructure, semiconductor manufacturing and research, critical minerals, pharmaceutical and medical production, and commercial and defense shipbuilding. The United States will retain 90 percent of the profits derived from this investment. According to the White House, the deal also included Japan’s commitment to increasing imports of U.S. rice and energy, purchasing U.S.-made commercial aircraft, and lifting restrictions on U.S. automobiles.
Philippines:  On July 22, President Trump announced a trade deal with the Philippines, under which imports from the Philippines would be subject to a 19 percent tariff rate. It has been reported that the Philippines would adopt zero tariffs on all imports from the United States although the Philippine President later clarified that the zero tariffs were applicable to automobiles imported from the United States. For further details, the text of the U.S.-Philippines trade deal will need to be analyzed.
Indonesia:  On July 22, the White House released details of the U.S.-Indonesia trade deal, which reduced the U.S. reciprocal tariff rate for Indonesia from 32 percent to 19 percent. In exchange for the lower rate, Indonesia agreed to eliminate tariff barriers on over 99 percent of U.S. products exported to Indonesia and remove non-tariff barriers, such as certification and labeling requirements, for U.S. industrial and agricultural exports. The deal also included Indonesia’s commitments to take actions to address global excess capacity in the steel sector, adopt a forced labor import ban, and remove restrictions on exports to the U.S. The U.S. and Indonesia will negotiate rules of origin that would benefit both countries, not third countries, and committed to strengthen cooperation to increase supply chain resilience.
United Kingdom:  On June 17, President Trump issued an executive order implementing the “U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal” under which the UK committed to increasing market access for American exports, particularly for beef, ethanol, and certain other American agricultural exports, and to reducing or eliminating numerous non-tariff barriers that discriminated against U.S. products. In turn, UK car manufacturers can sell up to 100,000 vehicles to the United States at a reduced rate of 10 percent with any additional vehicles subject to the Section 232 tariff rate of 25 percent on automobiles. The United States also eliminated tariffs on UK engines and aircraft parts. 
However, there are several items left to be negotiated, including tariff-rate quotas for UK steel and aluminum products, which are currently subject to 25 percent Section 232 tariffs, as well as potential preferential treatment for UK pharmaceuticals and their ingredients contingent upon the results of an ongoing Section 232 investigation, and adoption of a “structured, negotiated approach” to addressing U.S. national security concerns regarding other sectors that may be subject to future Section 232 investigations. 
Vietnam:  On July 2, President Trump announced that the U.S. had reached a trade deal with Vietnam, which would subject imports from Vietnam to a 20 percent tariff rate and a 40 percent rate for goods “transshipped” from third countries such as China. According to the President, Vietnam agreed to remove all tariffs on imports from the United States.
Several large trading partners have yet to reach an agreement with the United States. Of note, the U.S. and China continue to negotiate in advance of an August 12[sup]th[/sup] deadline for higher tariffs to snap back on each country’s exports. Canada and Mexico, which were not included in the countries subject to the April 2 reciprocal tariffs, do not appear to be the focus of the Trump Administration’s trade negotiation efforts at this time. Similarly, negotiations with India do not appear to be on a positive trajectory. On July 30, President Trump announced his intent to impose a 25 percent tariff on imports from India.

[putnam6]

See the key descriptor words? Modestly. Stabilizing. Slightly. That should set off red flags that things are iffy.

Yeah, this is how most financial news is non-committal.... Summer retail is always sluggish, though it has been shown historically. 2.9% isn't considered high inflation, especially because some of that was from tariff uncertainties. 

There are many more variables involved, external and outside influences; it's not all on Trump's decisions either.

In 2005, we had a fantastic market season, and right as our largest market was closing, news of New Orleans and Katrina hit.  Only 2005 (4.1%) exceeded 4%; most Dubya years were below 3%. Our industry sector has always been hyper-sensitive to economic conditions, and we didn't get back to our pre-2005 numbers till 2010-2011

America's largest industries by market weight are all up YTD, overall up 14.59% no industry over 3% market weight is down for the year. For these many sectors to have positive YTD numbers despite the tariff troubles and concerns is remarkable.




This is an interesting development, no doubt partially from DOGE and AI 


U.S. Job Cuts Surge in July 2025


Last updated 1 hour ago


U.S. employers announced 62,075 job cuts in July 2025, marking a 29% increase from June and a 140% rise from the previous year. These cuts, totaling over 806,000 for the year to date, stem from factors including AI automation and policy changes such as government efficiency initiatives and tariffs. The layoffs have primarily affected sectors like government and technology, contributing to heightened economic pressures.

[putnam6]

******I know it's not tariff related******

This is huge for my family and 62 million other Americans

Rapid Response 47
@RapidResponse47

"Starting next year, the IRS is cutting many retirees a bit more slack. Under the new law, individuals age 65 and older can claim an additional $6,000 deduction on top of the existing standard senior deduction. Married couples... that's a $12,000 tax break."

[putnam6]

In other news.... and even better perspective, Trump's inflation is .9% lower than King Charles ' 

Does this mean Brits are slurping .9% more shit through thier paper straws in June


 

The United Kingdom's current inflation rate, based on the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) for June 2025, is 3.6% year-over-year, up from 3.4% in May 2025. The Consumer Prices Index including owner-occupiers' housing costs (CPIH) was 4.1% in the 12 months to June 2025, up from 4.0% in May. On a monthly basis, both CPI and CPIH rose by 0.3% in June 2025.Current Inflation Rates (June 2025 or Latest Available, % Year-over-Year)
G7 Countries

• United States: 2.7% (June 2025, CPI, headline). Core inflation at 2.9%.
  
• United Kingdom: 3.6% (June 2025, CPI). CPIH at 4.1%, reflecting higher housing costs.
  
• Germany: 2.5% (June 2025, HICP, estimated from May’s 2.8% and stable Eurozone trends).
  
• France: 2.3% (June 2025, HICP, approximated from May’s 2.6% and Eurozone data).
  
• Italy: 1.1% (June 2025, HICP, based on May’s 0.8% and slight uptick).
  
• Japan: 2.7% (June 2025, CPI, stable from earlier 2025 figures).
  
• Canada: 2.7% (May 2025, CPI, latest available; June likely similar).
  

Other OECD/Advanced Economies

• Australia: 3.8% (Q2 2025, CPI, annualized from quarterly data).
  
• Austria: 2.9% (June 2025, HICP, estimated from May’s 3.1%).
  
• Belgium: 3.3% (June 2025, HICP, up from May’s 3.1%).
  
• Chile: 4.2% (May 2025, CPI, latest available).
  
• Czech Republic: 2.0% (June 2025, CPI, stable from May).
  
• Denmark: 1.8% (June 2025, HICP, approximated from May’s 1.9%).
  
• Estonia: 3.1% (June 2025, HICP, slight rise from May’s 2.9%).
  
• Finland: 1.5% (June 2025, HICP, stable from May).
  
• Greece: 2.4% (June 2025, HICP, up from May’s 2.3%).
  
• Hungary: 3.7% (June 2025, CPI, down from May’s 4.0%).
  
• Iceland: 6.3% (June 2025, CPI, high due to wage pressures).
  
• Ireland: 1.8% (June 2025, HICP, stable from May).
  
• Israel: 3.0% (May 2025, CPI, latest available).
  
• Latvia: 1.4% (June 2025, HICP, down from May’s 1.6%).
  
• Lithuania: 1.0% (June 2025, HICP, stable from May).
  
• Netherlands: 3.2% (June 2025, HICP, up from May’s 2.7%).
  
• New Zealand: 3.3% (Q2 2025, CPI, annualized).
  
• Norway: 2.6% (June 2025, CPI, down from May’s 3.0%).
  
• Poland: 4.2% (June 2025, CPI, up from May’s 3.8%).
  
• Portugal: 2.8% (June 2025, HICP, stable from May).
  
• Slovakia: 2.6% (June 2025, HICP, slight rise from May’s 2.4%).
  
• Slovenia: 1.9% (June 2025, HICP, stable from May).
  
• South Korea: 2.4% (June 2025, CPI, stable).
  
• Spain: 3.2% (June 2025, HICP, down from May’s 3.4%).
  
• Sweden: 2.1% (June 2025, CPI, down from May’s 2.3%).
  
• Switzerland: 1.3% (June 2025, CPI, among the lowest globally).
  
• Türkiye: 31.4% (2025 forecast, CPI, highest in OECD due to currency depreciation).
  

Non-OECD Advanced Economies

• Singapore: 2.8% (May 2025, CPI, latest available).
  
• Hong Kong SAR: 1.2% (May 2025, CPI, low due to subdued demand).
  
• Taiwan: 2.4% (May 2025, CPI, stable).