2012 dollars are a fairly popular standard, also used by the source. I would have chosen 2022 dollars, but it really doesn't actually mean something.

How did you obtain the data?

You said that "missiles are not that effective for defense". If Ukraine is being invaded using e. g. lots of armored vehicles and you claim that missiles are not effective, what should they use instead? You only mentioned your "100 million bullets".

Adressing the current situation on the ground: So what? Infantry needs to be supported by vehicles, artillery and missiles to be properly effective. Zelensky was specifically asking for more Patriot systems (AA missiles!) just a week ago, they need them to shoot down Russian cruise missiles which are targeting Ukrainian infrastructure - yet you claim sending missiles is not effective for defense - huh?

If you're so convinced, please give me a concrete example of what missile that the US is sending to Ukraine is not effective or a waste of money.

^(And I don't think sending 100 million bullets would be worth it instead, Ukraine isn't actually short on mags. What they will need a lot of is AA missiles and artillery munition such as shells or GMLRS missiles.)

TBH, this is a really stupid take and makes me think you're not that familiar with the topic of defense.

You can't stop a main battle tank with your rifle, actually no armored vehicle - you'll at the very least want AT missiles for those. And if you haven't noticed yet: Russia has a lot of these vehicles.

Now, if you were talking about non-AT AG missiles like HARM, you need those for defense (and retaking territory) too, mainly for attacking behind the lines equipment like artillery and air defense, which both are extremely important for supporting your enemies offense.

In case you missed it, it's no longer WW1.

Yes, but if you want to repel an invasion, you do need missiles, there's no way around it. Humanitarian aid is very important for lessening the pain that is already there, but it isn't going to stop Russia from hurting more.

An extremely important part though.

"Trickle Down Economics" isn't real, it never was actual serious economic theory (let alone consensus), but rather used as a political strawman.

When people accuse economists of promoting TDE, it is usually a mischaracterization of actual theories.

That graph doesn't really support the "Inflation is about Energy" title, however it is true that energy prices have been a major driver of inflation.