Tag Archives: markets

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.

Isn’t This Interesting

Posted on by
Reply

There’s an oil tanker traffic jam at the Turkish Straits junction with the Black Sea. That jam is being caused by tanker insurers’ refusal to honor a Turkish demand that the tankers produce letters from their insurers assuring Turkey that the tankers’ Protection and Indemnity Insurance policies remain in effect following the G-7’s, EU’s, et al., imposition of a price cap on Russian oil that bars insurers from covering oil tankers carrying Russian oil for sale above the cap. The International Group of P&I Clubs provides 90%, by tonnage, of the policies covering the world’s oil tanker fleet.

That Club’s problem with that demand for proof of effectivity of its policies post-cap is this:

The insurers said they couldn’t agree to the Turkish request because it could lead them to violate sanctions….

Isn’t that rationale for the Club’s reluctance interesting. What sanctions do Club insurers think they might violate if their policies comply with the requirements of the cap? It’s certainly possible that Russian oil shippers and/or traders could lie to the insurers about the prices of their oil, but that just puts a premium on the insurers exercising due diligence before they issue their policies. And on refusing to insure further if the Russian shippers/traders are discovered after the fact to have lied.

Get Rid of the EV Subsidy Altogether

Posted on by
Reply

Allied and friendly governments object to the Biden administration’s battery-operated car tax subsidy requirements that these vehicles be assembled substantially in the US or they’re not eligible for the subsidy. That puts battery-operated cars assembled in Europe, Japan, and the Republic of Korea at a substantial disadvantage in the competition for sales in the US.

They’re right, but for a different reason than they think.

The Biden administration should get rid of the battery-operated car subsidies altogether. If battery-operated cars truly were ready for market, they’d need no subsidy: Americans would buy them on the merits of the cars. If we don’t want them, or don’t want them in large numbers, government intervention (via subsidies here) is no more appropriate than is government intervention in any other section of our free market marketplace.

Full stop.