US retail sales fell 0.9% in May, worse than expected as consumers pulled back | Crypto Craft

US retail sales fell 0.9% in May, worse than expected as consumers pulled back | Crypto Craft

US retail sales fell 0.9% in May, worse than expected as consumers pulled back

From cnbc.com

Consumers spending pulled back sharply in May, weighed by declining gas sales and a looming unease over where the economy is headed, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday. Retail sales declined 0.9%, even more than the 0.6% drop expected from the Dow Jones consensus, according to numbers adjusted for seasonality but not inflation. The decline followed a 0.1% loss in April and came at a time of unease over tariffs and geopolitical tensions. Excluding autos, sales fell 0.3%, also worse than the estimate for a gain of 0.1%. However, excluding a series of items such as auto dealers, building materials suppliers, gas ... (full story)

Comments / Top
Subscribe

Jun 17, 2025 8:22am

There is a significant lack of understand here:

The libs have a simple economic theory: Tarrifs are added to the price so American consumers are paying for them.

Except, it is all wrong:

First, there is something called price elasticity. Please look it up.

Second: Trump's tariffs already reduced the unsustainable negative balance of payments we had with other contries by 55%! If you do not know why it was unsustainable, please look it up.

Third: BMW was imported with a tariff of 2.5% plus 8% retail sales tax. American cars in Germany faced a 10% tariff (22% in case of American pickups) plus 20% VAT that had to be paid in order to admit the car in the country of Germany. Then, the retail customer paid VAT again and the importer got some redit for it, I am not sure how much but not for all of it. What all this meant? We were favoring foreign manufacturers, foreign labor and foreign economies at the expense of American manufacturers, American labor and American national economy. That was resolved already by Trump's "base" tariff of 10%.

Fourth: Trump already introduce laws to lower and eliminate some income taxes to be paid by income from tariffs.

What is there not to like? Please tell me.
So much for "idiot Trump trying to destroy American economy with tariffs."

If you think that all this could have been accomplished without some short-term drop in retail sales, I have a bridge to sell you.

5

Jun 17, 2025 7:42am

Big miss! Overall US retail sales remains up year-over-year, but the m/m swings highlight uneven demand across sectors.

Auto sector collapse? After a flat April (+0.0 %), dealers shed nearly 4% of sales in May, the single largest drop across all categories.

Home-improvement saw a pullback as building-materials stores fell 2.7%, reversing small April gain (+0.3%).

Gas‐station sales down 2.0%, partly reflecting lower pump prices.

Food service drag: Despite strong year-over-year growth, May saw a 0.9% monthly dip after a 0.8% gain in April.

Miscellaneous retailers (e-commerce, pet, art supplies, etc.) surged 2.9%, solidifying non-store channels’ outperformance.

Sporting-goods (+1.3%) and clothing (+0.8%) both outpaced broad retail, suggesting modest discretionary spending resilience.

3

Jun 17, 2025 8:41am

Quoting dulcedeleche

Disliked

if data published is worse than predicted, why is USD up?

Ignored

Let me be honest with you, you do not need the news to be a successful fx trader.its just there for our knowing.

3

Jun 17, 2025 12:21pm

my question is, why is USD so strong vs gold... global geopolitics are worrying, USD economic data is bad, inflation rate US increasing and still not stable, global economic growth and security are worrying because war between countries has become a trend

1

Jun 17, 2025 7:48am

Quoting EventsTrader

Disliked

Big miss! Overall US retail sales remains up year-over-year, but the m/m swings highlight uneven demand across sectors. Auto sector collapse? After a flat April (+0.0 %), dealers shed nearly 4% of sales in May, the single largest drop across all categories. Home-improvement saw a pullback as building-materials stores fell 2.7%, reversing small April gain (+0.3%). Gas‐station sales down 2.0%, partly reflecting lower pump prices. ...

Ignored

Nice breakdown - like your interpretation

1

Jun 17, 2025 5:00pm

Quoting TimmyBTrades

Disliked

{quote} US consumers buy less due to higher prices, and that's a good thing? I don't understand your point here, because we wouldn't be buying more American products we would just be buying less total. {quote} Looking this up would not do any good because economists themselves cannot agree on what level of trade deficit is unsustainable, or if a deficit is bad at all. I would argue that the USDs leaving the country due to our trade deficit have to go somewhere, and are invested back into US assets giving us lower yields and higher equity valuations...

Ignored

So you do not understand my point because CONSUMERS ARE PAYING HIGHER PRICES? And where do you live Um Gottes Willen? Have you seen the CPI and PPI? What increase in prices when the inflation is 2.4% year to year.

Second, the economists (I am one) cannot agree what level of negative balance is unsustainable or whether it is harmful at all? This is why president Truman said he would like to have a one-handed economist so he would not get "on one hand and on the other hand." This also explains why economics is sometimes call a "dismal science."

At any rate, you give the circular argument here when you say that the dollars we spend on imports must go somewhere and they go into buying our exports. Circular, because those exports bought by the foreigners are nowhere as high as the inports. So, as the strongest economy in the world we are fiancing foreign countries and their economies and favor foreign manufacturers and foreign labor at the expense of the American economy, American manufacturers and American labor.

Trump set out to chage this.

Third, your argument is that we would keep tariffs even if other countries eliminate them? First, other countries cannot eliminate them because they finance their budgets so this is academic. Otherwise, you are comfirming what I said - namely, "they" want to eliminate trade deficit and unfair trade practices - which "they" did to a large extent by now and fentanyl is a small part of that.

Finally, I like lower taxes too, why not do that without all the tariff nonsense? That were I sense the lack of understanding of economics and budgeting. For THE CUTS IN INCOME TAXES ARE FINANCED BY INCOME FROM TARIFFS.

All in all, we should not adopt the nonsense of the left that is completely devoid of any knoweldge of economics and something called "price elasticity" and can be summarized as "idiot Trump want to detroy the American economy by tariffs that will be paid by the American consumers as the tariffs are added automatically to the price."

1

Jun 17, 2025 7:42am

US consumers are busy paying Trump's tariffs.

1

Trader#BB72

Jun 17, 2025 9:13am

No matter what the data is...the focus is the Middle East

2

Jun 17, 2025 8:07am

Quoting dulcedeleche

Disliked

if data published is worse than predicted, why is USD up?

Ignored

US retail sales excluding food services, auto dealers, building materials stores and gasoline stations, which are used to calculate GDP, rose 0.4% month-over-month in May 2025

Jun 17, 2025 10:57am

Quoting Eurorally

Disliked

First, there is something called price elasticity. Please look it up.

Ignored

US consumers buy less due to higher prices, and that's a good thing? I don't understand your point here, because we wouldn't be buying more American products we would just be buying less total.

Quoting Eurorally

Disliked

Second: Trump's tariffs already reduced the unsustainable negative balance of payments we had with other contries by 55%! If you do not know why it was unsustainable, please look it up.

Ignored

Looking this up would not do any good because economists themselves cannot agree on what level of trade deficit is unsustainable, or if a deficit is bad at all. I would argue that the USDs leaving the country due to our trade deficit have to go somewhere, and are invested back into US assets giving us lower yields and higher equity valuations (capital account surplus), which lowers the average American's borrowing cost/mortgage and boosts their retirement (40% of US household wealth is invested in the market). But I won't tell you to look it up because anyone trying to tell you there is an objectively correct answer here is just trying to sell you on their opinion.

Quoting Eurorally

Disliked

BMW was imported with a tariff of 2.5% plus 8% retail sales tax. American cars in Germany faced a 10% tariff (22% in case of American pickups) plus 20% VAT that had to be paid in order to admit the car in the country of Germany. Then, the retail customer...

Ignored

But this isn't the reason the administration is giving. Lutnick testified before congress that even if a country removed all tariff/VAT/etc we would keep tariffs. They want to eliminate the trade deficit and any other justification (unfair trade practices, fentanyl, etc) is a red herring.

Quoting Eurorally

Disliked

Fourth: Trump already introduce laws to lower and eliminate some income taxes to be paid by income from tariffs.

Ignored

I like lower taxes too, why not do that without all the tariff nonsense.

Jun 17, 2025 5:20pm

Quoting Eurorally

Disliked

{quote} So you do not understand my point because CONSUMERS ARE PAYING HIGHER PRICES? And where do you live Um Gottes Willen? Have you seen the CPI and PPI? What increase in prices when the inflation is 2.4% year to year. Second, the economists (I am one) cannot agree what level of negative balance is unsustainable or whether it is harmful at all? This is why president Truman said he would like to have a one-handed economist so he would not get "on one hand and on the other hand." This also explains why economics is sometimes call a "dismal...

Ignored

Pitfalls of just saying a broad economic term then 'Google it' as it comes from the basic economic theory of PED. Are you this emotional when discussing with your fellow economists?

I am saying we will not see higher inflation due to tariffs because CONSUMER SPENDING WILL GO DOWN. More price sensitivity (i.e. relative elastic demand in terms of prices) means less spending, so firms cannot sell at largely inflated rates. Read the theory you are telling everyone else to Google.

Circular reasoning? You may be the first "economist" I have ever seen that did not understand the difference between a current account and capital account lol.

In any case you can keep drinking the kool-aid; the equity market, bond market, and mainstream economic thought has agreed with me so far.

Jun 18, 2025 6:46am

Quoting hesron

Disliked

my question is, why is USD so strong vs gold... global geopolitics are worrying, USD economic data is bad, inflation rate US increasing and still not stable, global economic growth and security are worrying because war between countries has become a trend

Ignored

How can you be so wrong on so many points?

Jun 18, 2025 5:31pm

Quoting Trader#253E

Disliked

You all really think putting a bucket of fried chicken in front of a pavement ape with an extra dollar on the pricetag is going to stop it from eating? No one cares about prices anymore, income keeps rising faster than inflation. Fed solved the problem a long time ago, just print more money.

Ignored

I do not think you are quite right. Yes, the income has been rising faster than the rate of inflation for decades. But the FED has not solved this issue at all in spite of rhetoric and trying.

But no, that is not a solution to printing money. For the monetarists led by the Nobel Laureate in Economics Milton Friedman would tell you that if the money in circulation - the money supply - grows faster than the growth in GDP plus the increase in productivity, the more money is servicing the same production, the value of the money has to decline in order to get into a new equlibirum with the production - hence inflation.

Unhappily, the money supply rose in 23 months during the epidemic by the atronomical 40% from $15 trillion to $21 trillion.

The classical liberal economists such as von Hayek would add that the other components of inflation is the growth in demand - viz the housing market where the demand far exceeds the supply.

Jun 18, 2025 5:44pm

Quoting TimmyBTrades

Disliked

{quote} Pitfalls of just saying a broad economic term then 'Google it' as it comes from the basic economic theory of PED. Are you this emotional when discussing with your fellow economists? I am saying we will not see higher inflation due to tariffs because CONSUMER SPENDING WILL GO DOWN. More price sensitivity (i.e. relative elastic demand in terms of prices) means less spending, so firms cannot sell at largely inflated rates. Read the theory you are telling everyone else to Google. Circular reasoning? You may be the first "economist"...

Ignored

I will respectfully withdraw from this back and forth. Just this:

I did not suggest that you "google" the economics theory. I suggested that you google the recent history of CPI and PPI as you said, wrongly, that the prices have been increasing

You are repeating the now old saw that the prices will skyrocket so the cosumers will buy less and the companies will not be able to sell at inflated prices. What skyrocketing prices? Was there not along enough period of time so it is clear that those holding such a view put their foot in their mouth? Are you one of those "just wait for the next month" guys?

I will not dignify the rest of your nonsense with a comment. Other than that you said you would take lower taxes without the nonsense of higher tariffs - economically, your suggestion is a sheer lunacy.

Jun 17, 2025 11:37am

Quoting Eurorally

Disliked

There is a significant lack of understand here: The libs have a simple economic theory: Tarrifs are added to the price so American consumers are paying for them. Except, it is all wrong: First, there is something called price elasticity. Please look it up. Second: Trump's tariffs already reduced the unsustainable negative balance of payments we had with other contries by 55%! If you do not know why it was unsustainable, please look it up. Third: BMW was imported with a tariff of 2.5% plus 8% retail sales tax. American cars in Germany faced a 10%...

Ignored

Isn't your statement rhetorically aggressive and riddled with economic misinterpretations and factual inaccuracies? While tariffs can be used as leverage in trade negotiations, their costs are overwhelmingly borne by domestic consumers and firms, not foreign exporters. The intended goal of reducing trade deficits was not achieved, and the broader effects included price increases, supply chain disruptions, and retaliatory measures.

“The libs have a simple economic theory: Tariffs are added to the price so American consumers are paying for them. Except, it is all wrong...”

This framing is oversimplified and polemical. The relationship between tariffs and consumer prices is not a matter of partisan ideology but of mainstream economic consensus.

“There is something called price elasticity. Please look it up.”

Yes, price elasticity of demand is a well-established concept in economics. It refers to how sensitive the quantity demanded is to a change in price. However, the existence of price elasticity does not refute the claim that consumers bear the cost of tariffs. In fact, the degree to which consumers bear the burden of tariffs depends on elasticity:

If demand is inelastic, consumers will bear more of the cost.

If supply is inelastic, foreign producers will bear more of the cost.

In many cases, particularly for imported consumer goods (electronics, apparel, etc.), demand is relatively inelastic in the short term. As a result, consumers do absorb most of the cost through higher prices.

A study by the New York Fed, Princeton, and Columbia economists concluded that U.S. importers and consumers paid nearly 100% of the tariff costs introduced in the Trump era (https://www.nber.org/papers/w25672).

“Trump’s tariffs reduced the unsustainable negative balance of payments by 55%.”

This claim is misleading in both substance and scope.

The balance of payments includes not just trade but also capital flows and financial transfers. The Trump tariffs mainly targeted the goods trade deficit, not the broader balance of payments.

The U.S. goods trade deficit actually increased during Trump’s term:
2016: $752 billion
2020: $915 billion
(U.S. Census Bureau – https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...ical/gands.pdf)

The claim of a 55% reduction is not supported by federal data. If anything, the tariffs shifted the trade deficit from China to other countries, but did not significantly improve the aggregate U.S. trade balance.

“BMW had a 2.5% tariff. American cars in Germany faced 10% tariff + 20% VAT, and the U.S. was favoring foreign manufacturers. Trump's 10% base tariff fixed it.”

This comparison conflates tariffs with value-added taxes (VATs), which are not equivalent:

The VAT in Europe is a domestic consumption tax, applied equally to foreign and domestic goods. U.S. consumers also pay sales tax, which is similar in principle.

The 10% EU tariff on cars is applied uniformly to all non-EU producers, not just U.S. ones.

The U.S. applied a 2.5% tariff on imported passenger cars and 25% on pickups/SUVs, a longstanding tariff known as the "Chicken Tax." Thus, it is incorrect to suggest the U.S. was uniquely disadvantaged.

Moreover, Trump's tariffs were unilaterally imposed, bypassing WTO frameworks and resulting in retaliatory tariffs that hurt American farmers and manufacturers.

“Trump introduced laws to lower or eliminate income taxes paid from tariffs.”

This is inaccurate or at best poorly articulated. Tariff revenue collected by the U.S. government is not subject to income tax, because it is not private income—it is public revenue collected at customs. There is no evidence that Trump introduced legislation specifically designed to offset income taxes related to tariffs, since none existed.

What Trump did do was pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which lowered corporate and individual income tax rates. However, this was unrelated to tariffs and occurred before major tariffs were enacted in 2018–2019.

Jun 17, 2025 11:38am

Quoting Trader#6DD3

Disliked

{quote} Quality breakdown. You can't talk reason with a lot of people on this forum.

Ignored

What Reason?

What he wrote is rhetorically aggressive and riddled with economic misinterpretations and factual inaccuracies. While tariffs can be used as leverage in trade negotiations, their costs are overwhelmingly borne by domestic consumers and firms, not foreign exporters. The intended goal of reducing trade deficits was not achieved, and the broader effects included price increases, supply chain disruptions, and retaliatory measures.

“The libs have a simple economic theory: Tariffs are added to the price so American consumers are paying for them. Except, it is all wrong...”

This framing is oversimplified and polemical. The relationship between tariffs and consumer prices is not a matter of partisan ideology but of mainstream economic consensus.

“There is something called price elasticity. Please look it up.”

Yes, price elasticity of demand is a well-established concept in economics. It refers to how sensitive the quantity demanded is to a change in price. However, the existence of price elasticity does not refute the claim that consumers bear the cost of tariffs. In fact, the degree to which consumers bear the burden of tariffs depends on elasticity:

If demand is inelastic, consumers will bear more of the cost.

If supply is inelastic, foreign producers will bear more of the cost.

In many cases, particularly for imported consumer goods (electronics, apparel, etc.), demand is relatively inelastic in the short term. As a result, consumers do absorb most of the cost through higher prices.

A study by the New York Fed, Princeton, and Columbia economists concluded that U.S. importers and consumers paid nearly 100% of the tariff costs introduced in the Trump era (https://www.nber.org/papers/w25672).

“Trump’s tariffs reduced the unsustainable negative balance of payments by 55%.”

This claim is misleading in both substance and scope.

The balance of payments includes not just trade but also capital flows and financial transfers. The Trump tariffs mainly targeted the goods trade deficit, not the broader balance of payments.

The U.S. goods trade deficit actually increased during Trump’s term:
2016: $752 billion
2020: $915 billion
(U.S. Census Bureau – https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade...ical/gands.pdf)

The claim of a 55% reduction is not supported by federal data. If anything, the tariffs shifted the trade deficit from China to other countries, but did not significantly improve the aggregate U.S. trade balance.

“BMW had a 2.5% tariff. American cars in Germany faced 10% tariff + 20% VAT, and the U.S. was favoring foreign manufacturers. Trump's 10% base tariff fixed it.”

This comparison conflates tariffs with value-added taxes (VATs), which are not equivalent:

The VAT in Europe is a domestic consumption tax, applied equally to foreign and domestic goods. U.S. consumers also pay sales tax, which is similar in principle.

The 10% EU tariff on cars is applied uniformly to all non-EU producers, not just U.S. ones.

The U.S. applied a 2.5% tariff on imported passenger cars and 25% on pickups/SUVs, a longstanding tariff known as the "Chicken Tax." Thus, it is incorrect to suggest the U.S. was uniquely disadvantaged.

Moreover, Trump's tariffs were unilaterally imposed, bypassing WTO frameworks and resulting in retaliatory tariffs that hurt American farmers and manufacturers.

“Trump introduced laws to lower or eliminate income taxes paid from tariffs.”

This is inaccurate or at best poorly articulated. Tariff revenue collected by the U.S. government is not subject to income tax, because it is not private income—it is public revenue collected at customs. There is no evidence that Trump introduced legislation specifically designed to offset income taxes related to tariffs, since none existed.

What Trump did do was pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which lowered corporate and individual income tax rates. However, this was unrelated to tariffs and occurred before major tariffs were enacted in 2018–2019.

Trader#6DD3

Jun 17, 2025 8:50am

Quoting Eurorally

Disliked

There is a significant lack of understand here: The libs have a simple economic theory: Tarrifs are added to the price so American consumers are paying for them. Except, it is all wrong: First, there is something called price elasticity. Please look it up. Second: Trump's tariffs already reduced the unsustainable negative balance of payments we had with other contries by 55%! If you do not know why it was unsustainable, please look it up. Third: BMW was imported with a tariff of 2.5% plus 8% retail sales tax. American cars in Germany faced a 10%...

Ignored

Quality breakdown. You can't talk reason with a lot of people on this forum.

1

Jun 17, 2025 8:04am

Market gold volatile .... bad data for USD ... may be buy tomorrow in asia

Jun 17, 2025 8:17am

all data USD from last week = bad data

Jun 17, 2025 7:46am

fx industries at work don t take the bait

Jun 17, 2025 7:47am

Quoting OnlineAddict

Disliked

US consumers are busy paying Trump's tariffs.

Ignored

So wrong dude! So wrong

Jun 17, 2025 8:13am

Quoting Luxyus

Disliked

{quote} US retail sales excluding food services, auto dealers, building materials stores and gasoline stations, which are used to calculate GDP, rose 0.4% month-over-month in May 2025

Ignored

Alright. Thank you.

Jun 17, 2025 2:31pm

Quoting rackzzzz

Disliked

{quote} had the same thought thats why i sold USDJPY but i think because of markt manipulation

Ignored

Never trade numbers. Learn to read the charts. It's all there. The USD was poised to rally. Good luck on your journey.

Jun 26, 2025 9:49am

Quoting Guybrookes

Disliked

{quote} Never trade numbers. Learn to read the charts. It's all there. The USD was poised to rally. Good luck on your journey.

Ignored

yea but dont have the data influence on the market ?? im not trading that long so i still have to learn to sturdy the market correctly that i becoming profitable

Jun 17, 2025 7:47am

worse than forcasted and USD is up, makes total sense

Jun 17, 2025 7:48am

Buy gold

Jun 17, 2025 7:52am

Will they bring forward the interest rate cut

Jun 17, 2025 7:53am

have a nice day gang

Jun 17, 2025 7:54am

if data published is worse than predicted, why is USD up?

Jun 17, 2025 7:59am

no trade yes

Jun 17, 2025 7:59am

Fear fx 😂😂

Jun 17, 2025 8:10am

Me who's just tryna make money trading, then there's Trump

Jun 17, 2025 8:15am

GOLD will pump or dump ?

Jun 17, 2025 9:44am

The gold chart looks unusual, as if it's being manipulated by a market maker.

Jun 17, 2025 9:47am

BIDEN!!!!!!

Jun 17, 2025 11:42am

Quoting dulcedeleche

Disliked

if data published is worse than predicted, why is USD up?

Ignored

had the same thought thats why i sold USDJPY but i think because of markt manipulation

Trader#253E

Jun 18, 2025 1:34pm

You all really think putting a bucket of fried chicken in front of a pavement ape with an extra dollar on the pricetag is going to stop it from eating? No one cares about prices anymore, income keeps rising faster than inflation. Fed solved the problem a long time ago, just print more money.

Trader#3757

Jun 17, 2025 7:45am

this does not really bother the sp500

Trader#2FDF

Jun 17, 2025 7:52am

That mad guy is going to come out and say all very good and looking good …… you the fake news stop the bad news lolzzzzzz

Trader#4B9F

Jun 17, 2025 7:53am

Hmmm

Trader#D5C1

Jun 17, 2025 7:56am

ranging. dont take the trade

Trader#8D7A

Jun 17, 2025 8:01am

Hi

Trader#888A

Jun 17, 2025 8:01am

Hey

Trader#4F62

Jun 17, 2025 8:03am

why the hell is USD up on that trash news?

Trader#F9F8

Jun 17, 2025 8:12am

For GOLD pump or dump?

Trader#9FBE

Jun 17, 2025 9:38am

Why gold down ?

Game? Then the news is no meaning.

Grambing 100%

No reason to trade anymore.

Trader#8CF4

Jun 17, 2025 6:26pm

Quoting Eurorally

Disliked

a "dismal...

Ignored

TLDR.... how dumb are you.

- Older Stories
El Salvador Keeps Buying Bitcoin Despite IMF Loan Terms
From financefeeds.com|Jun 17, 2025
El Salvador is quietly adding to its Bitcoin reserves even after securing a $1.4 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund that discouraged further crypto accumulation. ...
Paradigm defends Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm in amicus brief, warns case could impact...
From theblock.co|Jun 17, 2025
Prominent crypto venture capital firm Paradigm has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm ahead of his trial set for July 14. In a blog ...
Trump signals escalation in Israel-Iran conflict as he leaves G7 summit early
From cnbc.com|Jun 17, 2025|21 comments
U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday said his early departure from the Group of Seven summit was owed to “much bigger” things than planning a ceasefire between Tel Aviv and ...

- Newer Stories
US industry production down 0.2% in May
From breakingthenews.net|Jun 17, 2025
Industrial production in the United States declined by 0.2% in February compared to the previous month, falling more than analysts expected, the Federal Reserve's Board of ...
Solana's (SOL) Path to $1K Intact Despite Middle East Tension
From dailyforex.com|Jun 17, 2025
While Israel’s recent strikes on Iran have sparked global market jitters, Solana’s bullish momentum remains robust, driven by strong investor confidence, surging network activity, ...
Watch these Bitcoin price levels ahead of Fed Chair Powell's speech
From cointelegraph.com|Jun 17, 2025
Bitcoin’s price failed another attempt at breaking above the resistance at $110,000 on June 17, as tensions in the Middle East escalated. Since June 5, BTC price has been unable ...

More

Story Stats

Jun 17, 2025 7:40am
Posted by
Newsstand

Low Impact Breaking

47

15.6K
Linked events:

US Core Retail Sales m/m

US Retail Sales m/m