Tag Archives: markets

Market Imperatives

Posted on by
Reply

Ford has said that it will delay the rollout of its wholly battery-powered three-row electric vehicles, its new model SUVs, from 2025 to 2027. That’s not because of development or production problems, either.

The additional time will allow for the consumer market for three-row EVs to further develop and enable Ford to take advantage of emerging battery technology, with the goal to provide customers increased durability and better value.

“Allowing the consumer market to develop further”—in other words, consumers don’t want these battery SUVs, and Ford isn’t intent on producing and not selling them, until customers actually want them. Which they don’t, never minding Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s æther-borne claim to the contrary.

Those silly consumers—they just don’t know what’s good for them.

A Thought on Interest Rates

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal is speculating on when the Fed might start lowering its benchmark interest rates, speculating further that the Fed might be worrying about whether it’s time and whether leaving its rates where they are might spark a recession. (I was one of those worrying about a recession starting up over the last year or year-and-a-half, and still, but maybe the Fed’s worry is as overblown as mine.)

Early in the article, the WSJ has this:

The central bank will keep its benchmark interest-rate target at a range of 5.25% to 5.5%, a 23-year high….

I’m not sure that’s a useful baseline. The first 20, or so, years of that period are when the Fed was artificially suppressing interest rates.

5.25%-5.5% benchmark rates actually are, long-term, reasonably consistent with a 2% inflation rate.

Maybe it’s time for the Fed to cry “Enough” and go back to the sidelines. Nothing more is needed; let the market fluctuate as it will. Rates already are within the historical fluctuation range that didn’t need Fed interference intervention.

The PRC Wants Us Out Of There

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China wants our technology and hardware out of that nation in its drive for self-sufficiency.

The 2022 Chinese government directive expands a drive that is muscling US technology out of the country—an effort some refer to as “Delete A,” for Delete America.
Document 79 was so sensitive that high-ranking officials and executives were only shown the order and weren’t allowed to make copies, people familiar with the matter said. It requires state-owned companies in finance, energy and other sectors to replace foreign software in their IT systems by 2027.

This is something we should be doing regarding PRC products in the US. Their surveillance cameras on US military bases, which our Pentagon procurement agents actively bought demonstrates the danger here, as does PRC espionage equipment on the ship-to-shore cranes in our ports are demonstrating today.

I agree with the PRC’s move. We should be out of the PRC, and that includes us no longer using PRC facilities to build stuff or the components for stuff. We need to relocate all of our PRC usages to other, non-enemy nations.

Beyond that, we need to stop importing PRC products altogether.

Subscriptions

Posted on by
Reply

A Wall Street Journal Finance writer wrote an article bragging about how all the subscriptions he had that he canceled pays for his lease on a Tesla Model Y. The key takeaway for me was the vast number of subscriptions this Finance writer had accumulated. This screen shot shows the large number of subscriptions that he canceled (or in the case of SiriusXM, the price cut that he negotiated):

And he still has all of these sucking money.

We still have Disney+, Hulu, Max, the language-learning service Duolingo and, of course, Spotify. We get three print newspapers delivered and many more digital news subscriptions.

It’s certainly true that a finance writer could easily need all those news outlet subscriptions, but who has that many extraneous subscriptions? Especially subscriptions to which, as this writer freely admitted in his article, they don’t even listen to or watch for weeks, months, on end.

My wife and I have an online subscription to the WSJ, a two-line subscription to Verizon for our cell phones, and a Spectrum cable subscription that provides us with our TV (no premium cable channels; it’s not quite the most basic bundle, but it’s pretty bare bones), Internet, and landline. There is a double potful of online news outlets to which we can link, for free, through our browser, and there are libraries in the nearby, also. And books. We read those for entertainment, edification, and straight up education. We read them in print version: those libraries, brick-and-mortar bookstores, and online booksellers.

We’ve thought about cutting the landline out of our cable subscription, but it’s proved too useful as a honeytrap for all the spam calls that come rolling in. As it happens, we have an answering machine capability on our landline phone that plays any messages being left as they’re being left. On those rare occasions when we recognize the voice and are interested in talking to the person, we can go ahead and pick up.

Oh, and he had this in his brag about having saved enough to cover the cost of his car:

…the cost [of his Model Y] dropped to $53 for a car we desperately needed.

He might have desperately needed a car, but he only desperately wanted the Tesla.

Another Reason to Rescind Chevron Defense

Posted on by
Reply

As The Wall Street Journal‘s editors put it in their editorial last Tuesday, nothing is stopping the

Securities and Exchange Commission and prosecutors from finding [regulatory] meaning in statutory penumbras.

Now the SEC is manufacturing a rule based on nothing but the æther in SEC Chairman Gary Gensler’s mind. Gensler has hailed into court a pharmaceutical company employee for the “insider trading” crime of trading in options on the stock shares of another pharmaceutical company, a company about which the man had no insider information at all. Not a whit.

Gensler, however, in plumbing the depths of his shadowy æther, has claimed to have found something in a penumbra of Federal law and Court decisions regarding insider trading. The man he’s charging knew from an employee-broadcast email from his company’s CEO that his company might be about to be acquired by another company—not the company in which our man did his trading.

Poof—Gensler has waved his hands and conjured an insider trading beef centered on no insider trading information at all. As the WSJ noted,

Federal law doesn’t explicitly ban trading on confidential information. But courts have said that insiders defraud companies by “misappropriating” private information for personal gain.

It’s in the phantasmal penumbra of “private information” that Gensler has conjured his offense: private information in one company (not even that private, it was a company-wide email that revealed the potential for an acquisition of the employee’s company) casts a shadow over other, Gensler-unspecified, companies, and so brings those other companies into the reach of one company’s allegedly private information.

And this, regarding those chimeric penumbras[1] of which too many of our courts still claim to see:

If something is in a penumbral region, it is not in the text.  If it is not in the text, it does not exist ….  If it does not exist, a judge cannot rule on it.  If in the end, all a judge can do after carefully reading the text is go more than a toe’s dip into its shadows for meaning, then he must not go in: he must rule a lack of governing statute or strike the statute for vagueness, and in either event return the matter to the political branches.

And this, from Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in denying a 2014 cert petition in Whitman v US [emphasis in the original]:

Only the legislature may define crimes and fix punishments. Congress cannot, through ambiguity, effectively leave that function to the courts—much less to the administrative bureaucracy[.]

Now the Supreme Court must overrule the SEC outright, which would be much easier to do were it to also—or already have by the time this case reaches it—rescinded the Chevron Defense foolishness which subordinates, by Constitutional design, the coequal Judiciary not just to the Executive, but to Executive subordinate branches led by political appointees and peopled by unknown and faceless bureaucrats.

[1] Hines, Eric, A Conservative’s View of the American Concept of Law