Category Archives: markets

Caveat Emptor

Posted on by
2

In a Wall Street Journal editorial centered on the rule-making moves by the Biden administration’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Trade Commission to cap or to outright ban so-called junk fees, there’s this tidbit offered in all seriousness by the FTC’s Lina Khan (the WSJ didn’t directly attribute this to her, but she’s the FTC’s Chair, so the tidbit wasn’t offered without her prior permission):

Consumers who select and travel to dealerships based on an advertised offer, only to learn late in the process (if at all) that the advertised offer does not apply, have often spent hours trying to purchase a car[.]

This, of course, is nonsense. Every car maker in the US, from “ordinary” car makers and dealers to luxury car makers and dealers, offer on their Web sites options to “build your car” for every model on offer, and the build options present every option available to the model along with the effect of option’s inclusion or removal on the car’s final price. Consumers who select and travel to dealerships, even if the selection is originally based on an advertised offer, will have already built their going-in preferred model and have their eyes wide-open to counteroffers and to other options offered or no longer available—together with their costs and savings identified during those discussions.

These proposed rules are nothing more than Government attempting to dictate to businesses how they must operate and to us average Americans what we will be permitted to buy. And that’s not just the exampled car-buying, it’s how this government wants to control how we do our banking, our investing, how we and our businesses in general operate in an economy.

Maybe it’s not caveat emptor. Maybe it’s cave imperium that we should operate under.

Idiocy

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington Post published an op-ed about the cost of eggs, and how they’re really cheap, and both WaPo and the writer were serious. Why eggs are cheaper than you think goes the headline. Then, with a straight face,

If you look at old cookbooks, you will notice that the authors seem to view eggs and chicken as almost a luxury good. My 1950 “Betty Crocker’s Picture Cook book” contains recipes for making mock chicken dishes—out of veal. Go back further and the 1896 Fannie Farmer cookbook sternly informs readers that, “eggs, even at twenty-five cents per dozen, should not be freely used by the strict economist.”

The writer then went on in great length about how much incomes have risen in those 125 and more years since, the time committed to cooking has decreased in those 125 and more years since, and on and on.

All true, too.

However.

We don’t live those 125 and more years ago; we live today, and we’ll live tomorrow. Yesterday is gone. And as even the writer of this WaPo op-ed admits:

…the price of eggs has spiked so much—from $1.79 in December 2021, to $4.25 a year later….

That price spiked far higher—over $11 the dozen—in some places. That’s today’s money for today’s eggs. The real world is today, not yesterday. Regardless of those old timey prices, we’re still paying today’s inflated prices for our eggs, and for all of our food, for which eggs are only a stand-in in this context.

This is the idiocy of the Left.

Lies of the President?

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) claimed, as a result of the latest inflation report, that food prices are falling.

The BLS, however, actually said this:

The food index increased 0.3 percent over the month [of December] with the food at home index rising 0.2 percent[.]

And this:

BLS data shows the “food at home” index rose 0.2% in December and 11.8% in the past year. Food away from home rose 0.4% in December and 8.3% in the last year.
“The index for cereals and bakery products rose 16.1 percent over the year. The remaining major grocery store food groups posted increases ranging from 7.7 percent (meats, poultry, fish, and eggs) to 15.3 percent (dairy and related products)[.]”

And this:

Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs rose 1% in December and 7.7% in the last year. Dairy and related products prices declined 0.3% in December but rose 15.3% in the last year. Fruits and vegetable prices declined 0.6% in December but rose 8.4% in the last year. Nonalcoholic beverages and beverage materials prices rose 0.1% in December and 12.4% in the last year. BLS’ “other food at home” category saw a 0.4% increase in December and a 13.9% increase in the last year.

When that flood of data came out, Biden reclamaed, and acknowledged in a speech Thursday that food prices did rise in December, but lauded the slower increase.

Oops.

Some will insist that the dichotomy between Biden’s initial claim and reality is further evidence of his decline. Politicians of the Progressive-Democratic Party and their Leftist supporters will insist he’s in full possession of his faculties (perhaps harkening back to his faculty status at UPENN [/snark]).

Taking the Progressive-Democrats and the Left at their word, though, would mean that Biden is openly lying about food inflation.

Go figure.

Overreach

Posted on by
Reply

The New York banking regulator, the New York State Department of Financial Services, has announced “rules” that would require banks of all sizes to consider climate change in their risk assessment considerations. NYSDF’s rules are made the worse because it has outsized influence due to the plethora of Wall Street institutions in the State.

Banks would be called upon to look at climate-related risks when bringing on new clients and when extending credit.

This is naked government overreach, even at the State level, and it’s one more reason financial institutions should leave New York. I can suggest Miami, Austin, Dallas, Sioux Falls, and Fargo as alternative locations.

It’s more than that, though. It’s an…inaccurate…goal. The only climate-related risk any American business, banking or other, faces is Government behavior vis-à-vis government bureaucrat-perceived climate situations.

A Simple Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Even if it might be politically difficult and short-term expensive.

Recall that EU member Lithuania expressed support for the Republic of China and in naked retaliation, the People’s Republic of China imposed a nearly complete trade embargo on Lithuania and blocked import of any other EU member’s products that contained Lithuania-originated parts.

Now, a year later, the EU is haling the PRC into the WTO in a suit over that embargo. Be still, my heart.

There’s a better and more effective and permanent solution to this sort of behavior from the PRC.

A year later, Lithuania has learned that it can get along without trade with the PRC, and by that example, so has the EU (and so have the US and non-PRC Asia, come to that).

The solution includes these straightforward steps.

  • The rest of us increase our trade with Lithuania
  • The EU in particular, and the rest of us as well, stop trading with the PRC
  • All of us increase our trade with the RoC

Sadly, the parties involved make such moves politically difficult with their own fear of PRC retaliations. And certainly, through the middle-term, it would be economically expensive to locate and develop alternative markets and to move supply chain steps—from dirt in the ground to component parts to finished products—completely out of the PRC. However, once those transfers are completed, we’d all be better off politically and economically from no longer having our economies dependent on the good offices of an aggressive and acquisitive enemy nation.

The PRC’s behavior toward Lithuania and its attempt to extort Japan through withholding shipments of rare earths to that nation are just two examples of that benefit.