Tag Archives: markets

Inflation? What Inflation?

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) and his White House spokesmen have been bragging about what a strong economy we have.

Even CNN waved the BS flag at that. Here’s how strong our economy really is.

The Labor Department on Tuesday reported its consumer-price index rose 8.3% in August from the same month a year ago [albeit down slightly from the prior two months’ year-on-year inflation]

And

[C]ore CPI, which excludes often volatile energy and food prices, increased 6.3% in August from a year earlier, up markedly from the 5.9% rate in both June and July

And

Food prices continued to climb sharply this past month, rising 0.8% in August from July, as did those for new vehicles leapt 0.8%. Prices also rose last month for medical care, education, electricity, and natural gas

Inflation in energy cost is especially troublesome. That’s the price of heating and cooling our homes, our places of business, our schools, how we power our industrial facilities. The impact on our health and finances from that exacerbates our demand for/need for medical care.

That inflation is made the worse by the growth in wages that’s been occurring since inflation took off with Biden’s ascension to office (if not since his election). Wage growth had been at half the rate of inflation, meaning us Americans’ income actually had been shrinking relative to the prices we face. But last month, despite that 8.3%/6.3% inflation, our wages grew…not at all.

Median household income was essentially unchanged last year on an inflation-adjusted basis….

Our wage dollar buys ever less in the Biden version of a strong economy.

Biden and his Progressive-Democratic Party are either wholly unaware of the real economy us average Americans face, or they’re blatantly lying about the situation.

Meanwhile, they partied on the White House lawn the day those numbers were released, celebrating this wonderful news.

Remember their obliviousness or their dishonesty this fall.

“Misunderstanding” of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

A number of credit card companies, on the demand of the Federal government as washed through the International Standards Organization, are going to start explicitly listing gun sales by lawful gun stores to individual average Americans. Among those credit card companies are Visa, Mastercard, and AmEx.

The Federal government now is going to track us average Americans and build a database of who among us has a firearm.

For what purpose?

…gun control advocates who argue that a separate category for gun store sales will help track suspicious quantities of firearm sales that could potentially lead to a mass shooting.

Because buying a firearm is ipso facto suspicious under the ideology of the Left and their Progressive-Democratic Party. But wait—suspicious quantities—what’s wrong with that? This is the camel’s nose. It won’t be long before the Feds decide that one is a suspicious number of firearms to buy. And then one is a suspicious number of firearms to own.

The concern of us average Americans is justified by this misleading claim by New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D) as he demonstrates his “misunderstanding” of the tracking.

When you buy an airline ticket or pay for your groceries, your credit card company has a special code for those retailers. It’s just common sense that we have the same policies in place for gun and ammunition stores[.]

Buying “guns and ammunition” is an explicitly protected activity under our Constitution. Buying firearms—keeping and bearing Arms—is an entirely unique activity for us average Americans, quite apart from the ordinary, day to day, activity of grocery buying, or the process of buying a travel ticket. There is no reason to track Americans going about our Constitutionally protected behaviors.

Other than identifying who has firearms for further Progressive-Democrat “control.” This is another effort of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s desired surveillance state.

Will the West Proceed?

Posted on by
Reply

In the face of the Group of Seven Club’s moves to impose a price cap on Russian crude exports globally, Russian President Vladimir Putin now threatens

to curtail the export of grain from Ukraine and said Moscow was ready to extend its rationing of natural-gas exports and cut off oil and refined products if the West went ahead….

And

Mr Putin said Wednesday that Russia had contractual obligations on energy deliveries but would reconsider them if a price cap were imposed.
“We simply will not fulfill [our contracts]. In general, we will not deliver anything if it contradicts our interests,” he told an audience of officials and business leaders. “We will not deliver gas, nor oil, nor coal, nor heating fuel. We will not deliver anything.”

This would result in temporary near-term pain for the West, to be sure, with winter a few months away. But it would result in permanent and disastrous pain for Russia.

Near-term for the West: that winter (which so far looks to be relatively mild, but weather forecasts…), and tight supplies of natural gas being squirreled away, along with iffy potentials for bringing recently shut down nuclear power plants back on line and keeping others scheduled for closure on line.

Temporary: Europe can find other sources of natural gas, oil, and coal (including, regarding the first two, plussing up North Sea production and building additional pipelines) for their power production plants and move away from Russian sources altogether and permanently. Especially if the West can get President Joe Biden (D) out of the way of American oil and natural gas production and export.

Long-term pain for Putin: he needs a minimum of $70-$80 oil in order to pay for his war against Ukraine—replacing equipment combat losses, providing food, fuel, ammunition, and other consumables for his surviving forces—along with the rest of his economy, which is almost entirely extractive, which potentiates his long-term vulnerability.

Permanent: he’ll have lost permanently his Western markets, leaving him with selling into the People’s Republic of China—and President Xi Jining will be forcing his own purchase price on Putin, a price made the firmer by the PRC’s own current economic strait. Further, those sales will require PRC assistance to develop: new Siberian oil and natural gas wells and pipelines (presently nearly non-existent) to deliver well output to the PRC. All of which will exacerbate Russia’s subordination to the PRC.

Aside: it’s true that Putin has markets in India and Turkey, but with Turkey, drastic as that nation’s needs are, its economy is too small to take up much of Putin’s oil. India has too ready access to too many alternative markets to be taken for much of a ride by Putin.

The salient question is whether the West has the stomach for what it takes to achieve victory. The jury is still out on that. Especially given who’s the nominal leader of the West.

Plus Inflationary Effects

Posted on by
1

Penn Wharton has updated its estimate of the cost to us average Americans of President Joe Biden’s (D) bailout of student loans, expanding its estimate to more than $1 trillion.

The largest potential cost-driver Penn Wharton identified is the Biden administration’s new income-driven repayment plan, which includes capping monthly student loan payments at 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income and reforming the repayment guidelines to guarantee that no borrower who makes “about the annual equivalent of a $15 minimum wage” will have to make monthly loan payments.

Others are touting the boon to our economy from all that freed-up spending those winners will be able to do, now that they don’t have to worry about paying debts.

In speaking from their Newspeak dictionary, though, the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians and their acolytes on the Left claim that that increased spending won’t add to the already burgeoning inflation our economy is afflicted with from supply disruptions and profligate spending (even for a Party administration) the Biden administration is throwing around.

Ignore what’s behind the curtain: the…intersection…of limited supply and increased spending that is inherently inflationary, especially in today’s economic environment, as anyone who’s had high school economics or who can understand a supply/demand graph knows.

Some on the Left piously intone that the bailed out students will use the opportunity to pay down the rest of their debts. Ignore what’s behind that other curtain, too, that the resulting increase in loanable funds held by financial institutions represents additional debt creation for the purchase of big-ticket items in the near- to intermediate-term supply-limited environment, which is inflationary in tomorrow’s and next week’s economic environment.

States Aim to be Zero-Emissions in their Cars by 2035

Posted on by
Reply

California has decided to ban all ICE car sales in the State by 2035—in the name of only zero-emission cars being allowed to be sold.

Never mind that it’s an impossible task, or that California, Washington, and Massachusetts are deceiving all of us and themselves with their claim of and demand for zero-emissions in cars sold in those States. This is, to use the technical term, a crock. Zero-emission cars are an impossibility, and it will be an impossibility for the foreseeable future of human history.

Mining for the raw materials for the batteries for these cars, and mining for the metals and other minerals that go into making any car, is not zero-emission: it takes energy to do all of that, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Shipping those raw materials to processing plants takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Processing that raw material into the components—batteries, car parts, wiring for the cars—takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Shipping those finished components to the final assembly plants takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Delivering those finished cars to their dealers for sale takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

The energy for charging and recharging the batteries in those “zero-emission” cars takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

Expanding the electric grid and building out a national network—or even just a city-wide network—of charging stations takes energy, and that energy comes from burning fuel—coal, oil, natural gas.

And getting the raw materials, components, assembly, shipping along the way to get the components for the grid build-out and to get those recharging stations—see above.

And that’s just a high-level view of the energy requirements for producing electric cars. Electric cars are not at all zero-emission vehicles.