Tag Archives: markets

A USPS “Upgrade”

Posted on by
Reply

The USPS is being pressured by President Joe Biden (D) and his EPA to go greenie-er in its vehicle upgrade. So,

The proposed action, which we are evaluating under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), includes an initial order plan for 5,000 electric vehicles, and the flexibility to increase the number of electric vehicles introduced should additional funding become available.

The US Postal Service wants to convert 10% of its 230,000 vehicle fleet to battery-operated “in the coming years,” but says going all electric would cost an additional $3.3 billion beyond its normal budget of $6.3 billion.

What jumped out at me, though, was this comparison between the replacement vehicles for which the USPS has contracted and its present fleet:

In response to a report that the NGDV [Next Generation Delivery Vehicle] only achieves a fuel efficiency of 8.6 mpg in typical use, compared to the Grumman’s 8.2 mpg, the USPS pointed out that the comparison was flawed because it was conducted with the NGDV using its air conditioning system, which the LLV [Long Live Vehicle] does not have. With it turned off, the NGDV achieves 14.7 mpg, according to the USPS.

A 70% increase in mileage with the a/c turned off? That seems to me a poorly designed air conditioning system, even with the windows open for mail delivery every few feet. That just means the compressor is running all the time; it shouldn’t be imposing that big a load on the engine. And: what’s that bump going to do to the battery in the electric NGDV, both its miles between charges and its charge-discharge lifetime?

The Fed and Social Engineering

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) wants our Federal Reserve System to engage in economic social engineering, so he’s nominating as the Fed’s banking supervisor the climate activist Sarah Bloom Raskin. Among her lately remarks concerning credit allocation and climate change was her last-spring op-ed in The New York Times. She led off that piece with this:

Climate change poses the next big threat. Ignoring it, particularly to the benefit of fossil fuel interests, is a risk we can’t afford.

She had this, too, in the same piece:

The Fed is singularly poised to seed strategic investments in future economic stability.

And this:

The decision to bring oil and gas into the Fed’s investment portfolio not only misdirects limited recovery resources but also sends a false price signal to investors about where capital needs to be allocated[.]

Raskin had this in her September 2020 Project Syndicate op-ed, reprinted by Duke Law:

US regulators need to be encouraged to think more imaginatively about how they can engage with local transition efforts. For example, how might financial policies from diverse agencies be stitched together to produce outcomes that enable firms to hit their net-zero targets? How can financial policy be used to help accelerate a transition that redeploys workers for new jobs, or to assist households that are being asked to change their spending habits? And how can regulatory changes relating to disclosure, access to credit, and pricing of risk support a rapid and just green transition?
…
In short…[f]inancial regulators must reimagine their own role so that they can play their part in the broader reimagining of the economy.

That’s not the Federal Reserve’s role, though. The Fed’s statutorily required goals are to maximize employment, stabilize prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. There’s nothing in there about climate change, or “guiding” lending to this or that government-favored group of Americans and away from that or this government-disfavored group of Americans, or any other sort of social engineering.

One more thing. Aside from Raskin’s own altered-state understanding of the Fed, a larger problem regards the present administration’s overall attitude. That Biden-Harris actually nominated Raskin says volumes about his own view of law and his own willingness to disregard it in order to increase his administration’s power.

Out of Touch?

Posted on by
Reply

Or openly lying?

Small businesses are booming, according to the Biden-Harris administration.

President Biden’s efforts have not only helped millions of Main Street businesses keep their lights on and employees on payroll, they have enabled a remarkable rebound in small business activity, with small business demand for labor and inventories near record highs.

And

According to a leading survey of small business owners, the share of small businesses planning to create new jobs in the next three months is higher than it ever was at any point during the previous Administration. Another recent survey of small business owners found that 71 percent are optimistic about their own performance in 2022, up from 63 percent one year ago.

Carefully unidentified surveys. An openly identified survey, a Goldman Sachs survey, says otherwise.

86% of small business owners say that broader economic trends, such as supply chain issues, inflation, and workforce challenges, are having a negative impact on their small businesses

And

66% of impacted businesses say it is a problem for their business that suppliers are favoring large businesses over small businesses….

And

84% of small business owners say inflationary pressures have increased since September of 2021

And

Two-thirds of small business owners do not think the Federal government has done enough to address the economic trends

And

29% [of small business owners] think things in the US are moving in the right direction, reflecting a 38% decline since June of 2021.

That should be an embarrassing disconnect for the Biden-Harris administration, which makes me repeat my question: are the personages in this administration, from Biden-Harris on down, that far out of touch, or are they openly lying to us?

Either way, this is an incompetent administration, and it’s going to be a dangerous three years, domestically as well as globally.

“It Depends on Uncle Sam”

Posted on by
Reply

Without more help from Washington, electric-vehicle sales will struggle to live up to the stock-market hype.

That Wall Street Journal lede pretty much tells the tale.

And this:

If the new technology is to live up to high investor expectations, the global record suggests that the US will need to embrace subsidies.

It depends on Uncle Sam. As long as electric vehicles get subsidies of any sort—either on the manufacturing end or to buyers of them on the other end—these battery cars can never be mainstream. As long as they’re getting any sort of subsidy, battery cars are tautologically unready for market.

Inflation Worries

Posted on by
Reply

Jason Furman, ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) Council of Economic Advisers Chairman, wrote about four things about which to worry regarding the current inflation increase and its durability. Three of them were reasonably accurate. He also predicted a Fed response.

First, the economy is beginning 2022 with much tighter labor markets than a year ago. …
Second, demand should remain above pre-pandemic trends, while supply will likely continue to lag behind. …
Third, consumers, businesses, forecasters and financial markets all expect near-term inflation to be about 1 to 3 percentage points higher than a year ago. …

So far, so OK. But his fourth, not so much.

Fourth, the trajectory of Covid and its effect on inflation are highly uncertain.

In fact, it’s badly off the mark. What’s highly uncertain is the Federal government’s trajectory of variable, and often panic-hyped, (over)reaction to the Wuhan Virus. This one is beyond the ken of the Fed, or it should be, and is completely under the control of President Biden-Harris (D).

The Furman’s predicted Fed answer isn’t all that, either.

He [Fed Chairman and nominee for continuation as Chairman Jerome Powell] proved that the Fed’s actions will depend on the data, and the Fed is now on course to start raising rates in March. If inflation remains as high as I fear it will, expect him to continue to follow the data by pivoting further. Given the uncertainty, however, he should stay the course—for now.

No.

If the Fed is going to be serious about lowering inflation back into the neighborhood of its target rate of 2%, it needs to

  • stop buying Treasury debt
  • disgorge its existing Treasury debt instrument holdings (ideally by simply not rolling them at maturity)
  • set its benchmark interest rates at levels historically consistent with 2% inflation
  • sit down and be quiet instead of constantly trying to respond to every jot and tittle of market variation