Tag Archives: markets

Another Excuse…

Posted on by
Reply

…for Leftist-dominated governments to grab power. Farmers Insurance, and other insurance companies, are moving to restrict policy sales in California and Florida due to rising payout costs from a recent spate of natural disaster claims. Public Citizen said that such moves are

prime example of the insurance industry’s hypocrisy on climate change.

Progressive-Democratic Party politicians insist that insurance companies aren’t doing enough to combat global warming and want to impose requirements on them to do more. Connecticut’s Leftist politicians are proposing a 5% surcharge on “any premium payments from any fossil fuel company” to any insurer licensed in the state.

Insurers, in a free market economy, are in the business of insuring risk—transferring the risk of a business venture, or ownership of a home, from the venturer/homeowner to the insurer in exchange for a fee based on the risk’s likelihood of occurring and its cost should it occur.

Insurers, in the Progressive-Democrat economy, are tools of the State, usable by the State to achieve the Progressive-Democrats’ personal goals.

Another Reason…

Posted on by
Reply

…to disband altogether the Securities and Exchange Commission and build a new exchange watchdog from the ground up. Now it wants a database of all investor personal information whenever those investors make a move in our stock market.

The Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) database was originally proposed by the SEC in 2010 to help regulators track order and trading activity throughout US markets for listed equities and options. According to the ASA, the database will list all the financial holdings and personal information of investors, including their name, phone, address, brokerage accounts, birthdate, and Social Security numbers.

Then, a year ago,

the SEC released an order that granted temporary relief from certain requirements of the CAT, delaying its full implementation until 2024. In the interim, the SEC is requesting the information be given voluntarily, with expected forced implementation by next year’s deadline, according to the ASA [American Securities Association].

This is just weasel-working around the SEC’s demand to have all personal information, even though it has no need for those data.

This SEC has shown, once again, that as an institution it cannot be trusted with American investor data.

Owning vs Renting

Posted on by
Reply

The cost of renting a house or apartment continued to rise last month.

Shelter costs, which account for about 40% of the core inflation increase, rose 0.4% for the month and are up 7.8% over the past year.

This emphasizes, for me anyway, one advantage of owning a home over renting it that gets little attention. That’s the advantage of locking in the “rent” rate, the cost of having shelter.

Having bought the house (assuming it’s done with a regular mortgage rather than one with a balloon payment after a few years), the owner now is protected from much of the damages of inflation: unlike rent rising (and it’s usually an annual increase, even with low inflation), the owner’s mortgage payment remains static—it cannot rise. Further, as inflation takes its toll, that mortgage gets paid with increasingly cheaper dollars, a phenomenon that’s made more apparent as pay raises occur—also, in the main (though not always), annually—even as inflation does not rise as quickly—which periods occur fairly often: those periods between recessions or stagnations.

And this: as interest rates fall, which they do relatively frequently, it’s usually possible to refinance the mortgage to a lower rate, and so to a lower monthly payment. Rents almost never fall (except in the most extreme economic conditions), and that increases the advantage of owning vs renting.

Of course, during times of high inflation, it’s much harder to buy a home in the first place—prices are much higher and rising, and interest rates tend to be high and rising. Once that upfront cost is met, though, the advantage is established. Rents are much higher, too, and rising, and so it’s also much harder to get into a rented home, but even after the renter is in, that cost continues to vary steadily upward.

Lastly, even in today’s government-diktated renting environment, it’s still harder to get thrown out of an owned home through mortgage default than it is from a rented home through rent nonpayment.

And none of that reaches the “investment for retirement” aspect of owning vs renting that is at the center of the most common form of the debate.

What are Biden and Austin Up To?

Posted on by
Reply

US military retirees living in Turkey are about to lose access to the US base at Incirlik and to all other American bases in the country. The loss will take effect 1 October of this year. Among other things, this will mean our veterans will lose access to

  • base commissaries, which sell American groceries
  • Army and Air Force Exchange Service stores—Base Exchanges—which3 sell American goods
  • US post office services, including PO Boxes through which our veterans
    • receive and send back their absentee ballots for American elections
    • receive American medicines

The commander of the US presence on Incirlik, USAF Colonel Calvin Powell, has said the ban is related to a changing Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Turkey, but this is hard to credit. Similar bans are being contemplated at US presences around the world: Aviano Air Base in Italy and the US presences in the Philippines, for instance.

Hence my question: what are SecDef Lloyd Austin and President Joe Biden (D) up to now?

Not At All

Posted on by
Reply

California’s Proposition 12, which sets animal-welfare standards for meat sold within the state, has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It’s a ruling that should have been expected, and appellants’ claim that the California law violates the Commerce Clause notwithstanding, the ruling is proper. What a State requires of products sold entirely within it is not interstate commerce—which is the province, and the only aspect that is the province, of the clause.

All Prop 12’s law does is place requirements on the meat sold within the State; it imposes no requirements on how other States comport themselves, including how they raise their food animals. Nothing in the law forces other States to incur the costs of complying with it.

It is true enough that

Californians account for about 13% of the country’s pork consumption but raise hardly any pigs. That means that the costs of complying with Proposition 12 fall mostly in states like Iowa, which raises a third of the country’s pigs.

The Prop 12 law often is viewed as an attempt by California to dictate regulate what other States do regarding their own production requirements. The decision to accede to California’s “regulatory” efforts, though, is a purely business one and not at all a legal one. In fact, the ruling also makes it easier, from a legal standpoint, for states like Iowa to not sell their pork products in or into California at all.

And that’s what I recommend. There are a lot of markets other than California, including export markets, that would easily absorb those 13%. It’s long past time producers in the other 49 States, and our several territories, start ignoring California and its foolishnesses.