Tag Archives: #Economics

Posted on by

Joe Biden has earned exactly what he’s getting from Saudi Arabia Are there no adults in the White House?

We have previously noted that the oil production cut by OPEC+ was primarily engineered by Russia and Saudi Arabia, and that President Biden’s statements condemning Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the country’s de facto ruler, might not have exactly persuaded that nation to work charitably with the United States. Now, from Business Insider:

The US and Saudi Arabia traded petty insults in an feud over oil after a reported secret deal fell apart

by Tom Porter | Thursday, October 27, 2022 | 7:00 AM EDT

A US official mocked a comment by a Saudi prince who claimed the White House was acting immaturely, the latest exchange in an embarrassing feud between the nations over oil.

“It’s not like some high school romance here,” John Kirby, the communications coordinator at the National Security Council, said when asked about a comment by Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman.

The prince had criticized the White House for releasing some of its vast oil reserves to reduce prices, painting the move as childish and describing Saudi Arabia as the “maturer” country.

Kirby was not happy. “We’re talking about a significant, important bilateral relationship, a partnership that has survived over 80 years,” he said. “I don’t think talking about it in terms like that necessarily lends the gravity of how important this relationship is, to the way that we’re considering it.”

The New York Times reported on it from a different angle:

U.S. Officials Had a Secret Oil Deal With the Saudis. Or So They Thought.

After Saudi leaders pushed to slash oil production despite a visit by President Biden, American officials have been left fuming that they were duped.

By Mark Mazzetti, Edward Wong and Adam Entous | Tuesday, October 25, 2022

WASHINGTON — As President Biden was planning a politically risky trip to Saudi Arabia this summer, his top aides thought they had struck a secret deal to boost oil production through the end of the year — an arrangement that could have helped justify breaking a campaign pledge to shun the kingdom and its crown prince.

It didn’t work out that way.

Mr. Biden went through with the trip. But earlier this month, Saudi Arabia and Russia steered a group of oil-producing countries in voting to slash oil production by two million barrels per day, the opposite of the outcome the administration thought it had secured as the Democratic Party struggles to deal with inflation and high gas prices heading into the November elections.

So, President Biden went through with what the Times called a “politically risky trip”, but while on that trip, raised the Jamal Khashoggi killing at the very beginning:

“I raised it at the top of the meeting, making clear what I thought at the time and what I think of it now,” Mr. Biden said. “I was straightforward and direct in discussing it. I made my view crystal clear. I said very straightforwardly for an American president to be silent on an issue of human rights is inconsistent with who we are and who I am. I always stand up for our values.”

He reported that Prince Mohammed, often known by his initials M.B.S., denied culpability.

“He basically said that he was not personally responsible for it,” Mr. Biden said. “I indicated that I thought he was.”

Somehow, some way. no one in the Biden Administration was adult enough to realize that the President’s supposedly private conversations with the Crown Prince, which Mr Biden then reiterated publicly, might just sabotage the deal that had been previously negotiated to help “justify breaking a campaign pledge to shun the kingdom and its crown prince.”

The move led angry Biden administration officials to reassess America’s relationship with the kingdom and produced a flurry of accusatory statements between the two governments — including a charge by the White House that Saudi Arabia was helping Russia in its war in Ukraine.

Lawmakers who had been told about the trip’s benefits in classified briefings and other conversations that included details of the oil deal — which has not been previously disclosed and was supposed to lead to a surge in production between September and December — have been left fuming that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman duped the administration.

An obvious point: the Arabs have a completely different culture than do Americans — yes, I know: we Americans do not really seem to have just one culture ourselves — and perhaps it shouldn’t have been expected that the Crown Prince would shrug off a little public insult the way Americans seem to believe he should have. Mr Khasoggi’s murder was arranged sometime after the Saudi exile, who wrote for The Washington Post, essentially called Mr bin Salman a liar. It was a political risk for the Crown Prince to arrange, order, or at least suggest — “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” — that Mr Khasoggi needed to be eliminated, but it happened anyway. A savvy foreign policy expert might have realized that Mr bin Salman took things, took criticism, personally.

Of course, when I look at the silliness, right before an election in which the Democrats are expected to lose control of the House of Representatives, in which the Biden Administration has engaged, I don’t see a lot of savviness evident.

Perhaps those congressmen “fuming that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman duped the administration” might start asking themselves: was it Mr bin Salman who duped the Biden Administration, or was that Mr Biden himself?
_________________________________
Cross-posted on American Free News Network.

Posted on by

No surprise: fuel prices are beginning to rise again

We noted, on Wednesday, October 5th, that very much contrary to President Joe Biden’s wishes, Russia and Saudi Arabia pushed OPEC+ to set a reduction in petroleum production of 2,000,000 barrels per day:

Saudi Arabia and Russia, acting as leaders of the OPEC Plus energy cartel, agreed on Wednesday to their biggest production cuts in more than two years in a bid to raise prices, countering efforts by the United States and Europe to choke off the enormous revenue that Moscow reaps from the sale of crude.

President Biden and European leaders have urged more oil production to ease gasoline prices and punish Moscow for its aggression in Ukraine. Russia has been accused of using energy as a weapon against countries opposing its invasion of Ukraine, and the optics of the decision could not be missed.

“This is completely not what the White House wants, and it is exactly what Russia wants,” said Bill Farren-Price, the head of macro oil and gas analysis at Enverus, a research firm. It also puts Saudi Arabia on a diplomatic “collision course” with the United States, he said.

The cut of two million barrels a day represents about 2 percent of global oil production.

Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, told reporters that the decision was a “mistake and misguided. “It’s clear that OPEC Plus is aligning with Russia with today’s announcement,” she said.

The United States is hardly a nation President Vladimir Putin wants to please: the US continues to send money and war materiel to Ukraine, which is directly at war with Russia, so the US is, in effect, engaged in a proxy war with Russia. Maybe, just maybe, Vladimir Vladimirovich isn’t in any mood to do favors for Mr Biden.

And, of course, Mr Biden directly accused Saudi Crown Prince of ordering the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and called teh Crown Prince a liar for denying it. Could it possibly be that the de facto ruler of the world’s largest petroleum exporter is not really inclined to be nice to our President?

Well, now the effects of the OPEC+ decision are becoming known:

Why gas prices are going back up after nearly 100 days of declines

by Rob Wile | Monday, October 10, 2022

It was the longest losing streak for gasoline prices since the early months of the pandemic: For 98-consecutive days this summer, American drivers experienced declining gas prices thanks in part to a slower worldwide demand for oil.

Now, a cut in oil production signaled by the OPEC+ group last week has sent global crude prices higher, bringing upward pressure back to prices at the pump.

According to AAA, the national average gas price climbed to $3.92 a gallon Monday.

Prices are likely to keep going higher from here as oil prices continue to climb, according to Patrick De Haan, chief petroleum analyst at gas price tracking group GasBuddy.com.

“With OPEC+ deciding to cut oil production by two million barrels a day, we’ve seen oil prices surge 20%, which is the primary factor in the national average rising for the third straight week,” he said in a blog post Monday.

For the rest of the country, De Haan said he expects prices to rise as much as $0.30 from their September lows, which would put them at around $4 a gallon.

It’s not all peaches and cream in OPEC+: as The Wall Street Journal reported, Iraq is concerned that it cannot afford the mandated production cuts, but that’s somewhat counterbalanced by a strike among Iranian oil workers. That does mean that projections that gasoline will reach into the $4.00+ per gallon range a bit more guesswork than straight statistical modeling.

The most important point? The election is in 29 days.

Posted on by

This year’s “October surprise” As Joe Biden tries to lower inflation, his actions have pushed OPEC to increase prices

In his efforts to dial down the inflation rate, one would think that President Joe Biden wouldn’t want to see OPEC cut oil production, decreasing petroleum supplies and thereby increasing prices. But perhaps Mr Biden’s actions have had precisely the opposite effect. From The New York Times:

In Rebuke to West, OPEC and Russia Aim to Raise Oil Prices With Big Supply Cut

by Stanley Reed | Wednesday, October 5, 2022 | Updated 3:42 PM EDT

Saudi Arabia and Russia, acting as leaders of the OPEC Plus energy cartel, agreed on Wednesday to their biggest production cuts in more than two years in a bid to raise prices, countering efforts by the United States and Europe to choke off the enormous revenue that Moscow reaps from the sale of crude.

President Biden and European leaders have urged more oil production to ease gasoline prices and punish Moscow for its aggression in Ukraine. Russia has been accused of using energy as a weapon against countries opposing its invasion of Ukraine, and the optics of the decision could not be missed.

“This is completely not what the White House wants, and it is exactly what Russia wants,” said Bill Farren-Price, the head of macro oil and gas analysis at Enverus, a research firm. It also puts Saudi Arabia on a diplomatic “collision course” with the United States, he said.

The cut of two million barrels a day represents about 2 percent of global oil production.

Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, told reporters that the decision was a “mistake and misguided. “It’s clear that OPEC Plus is aligning with Russia with today’s announcement,” she said.

There’s more at the original.

As The Wall Street Journal reported, the stop-gap emergency funding bill to avoid a government shutdown included some major funding for Ukraine:

The stopgap legislation included several provisions beyond funding the federal government’s current operations.

The resolution contains more than $12 billion in aid to Ukraine to help fortify the country’s military with new weapons and support the government in Kyiv as it fights off Russia’s invasion.

That aid includes $3 billion for training, equipment, weapons and other support—such as salaries and stipends—for Ukraine’s military and security forces, and $4.5 billion in budgetary support for Ukrainian government operations. It also dedicates $1.5 billion to replenishing U.S. military stockpiles and those of foreign allies who sent supplies to Ukraine at the request of the U.S.; it also includes $540 million to increase production of critical munitions and $2.8 billion to bolster Defense Department operations in support of Ukraine.

So, in trying to prevent Russia from forcing the price of crude oil higher, President Biden and the United States government will continue to send money to the nation with which Russia is at war. Perhaps, just perhaps, that isn’t the best way to get Vladimir Vladimirovich to pay attention to what the United States wants.

Of course, it wasn’t just Russia pushing for the production cut; Saudi Arabia was as well. From The New York Times again:

Biden Says He Told Saudi Prince He Blames Him for Khashoggi Murder

by Peter Baker | Friday, July 15, 2022 | Updated: Monday, July 18, 2022

President Biden said Friday night that he brought up the murder of Jamal Khashoggi during his closed-door meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and told the prince that he considered him to blame.

While Mr. Biden said nothing about Mr. Khashoggi during the public part of his meeting with the crown prince, he told reporters afterward that he considered the killing “outrageous” and directly confronted Prince Mohammed, who was judged responsible by the C.I.A. for the assassination carried out in Istanbul by a team of Saudi operatives in 2018.

“I raised it at the top of the meeting, making clear what I thought at the time and what I think of it now,” Mr. Biden said. “I was straightforward and direct in discussing it. I made my view crystal clear. I said very straightforwardly for an American president to be silent on an issue of human rights is inconsistent with who we are and who I am. I always stand up for our values.”

He reported that Prince Mohammed, often known by his initials M.B.S., denied culpability.

“He basically said that he was not personally responsible for it,” Mr. Biden said. “I indicated that I thought he was.” . . . .

Mr. Khashoggi was a Saudi contributor to The Washington Post who was critical of the prince’s rule. After his killing, Mr. Biden had said he would make Saudi Arabia a “pariah,” but aides say world events have left him little choice but to deal with the kingdom.

Asked about that remark on Friday, he said, “I don’t regret anything I said.”

But Mr. Biden’s decision to meet with the crown prince left human rights activists and Mr. Khashoggi’s family outraged. Hatice Cengiz, his fiancée, tweeted what she said Mr. Khashoggi would have thought: “Is this the accountability you promised for my murder? The blood of MBS’s next victims is on your hands.”

Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince, was already the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, and his father, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, 86, just appointed him Prime Minister as well.

So, the two nations which have been the number one and number two petroleum exporting nations, and the two nations which lead and drive OPEC, are the two nations President Biden has decided he’s going to piss off. So, when Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, told reporters that the decision was a “mistake and misguided,” and that, “It’s clear that OPEC Plus is aligning with Russia with today’s announcement,” perhaps, just perhaps she might have noted that her boss helped to give Russia and Saudi Arabia a common cause.

Full disclosure: I have been very opposed to the United States and NATO providing military aid to Ukraine. Not only did Ukraine decide to decline NATO membership previously, but the idea that we are fighting a proxy war with Russia directly, with a nation which has a strategic nuclear arsenal easily capable of destroying the United States and Europe, strikes me as utter madness. President Putin is, in some reports — though who can really know what to believe here — thinking very much differently than a Western leader would only means that he could, though not necessarily would, think very differently than we would about the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Ukrainian troop concentrations, and once the nuclear threshold is crossed, all bets are off. No, I do not want Russia to win its war of aggression against Ukraine, but I don’t want it so badly that I’m willing to risk a nuclear war to prevent it.

Now, Mr Putin is using one of the weapons he does have, a weapon to raise oil prices around the world, just as the northern hemisphere has exited summer and is heading toward winter. This year’s “October surprise,” just a month before the congressional elections, will just take more money out of the pockets of working Americans. And now you know why I call him the dummkopf from Delaware.

Posted on by

Now Our Betters want you to charge your Chevy Dolt at work, not a home. That's going to cost you more money.

A 2019 Chevy Bolt electric vehicle caught fire at a home in Cherokee County, Georgia, on Sept. 13. Source: Cherokee County Fire Department. Click to enlarge.

Perhaps I am stepping on William Teach’s toes with this one, but when this article appeared in my Google feed, it was too much of an opportunity on which to pass. I did check first to make sure Mr Teach hadn’t already written on the subject! From Stanford University:

Charging cars at home at night is not the way to go, Stanford study finds

The move to electric vehicles will result in large costs for generating, transmitting, and storing more power. Shifting current EV charging from home to work and night to day could cut costs and help the grid, according to a new Stanford study.

by Mark Golden | Thursday, September 22, 2022

The vast majority of electric vehicle owners charge their cars at home in the evening or overnight. We’re doing it wrong, according to a new Stanford study.

In March, the research team published a paper on a model they created for charging demand that can be applied to an array of populations and other factors. In the new study, published Sept. 22 in Nature Energy, they applied their model to the whole of the Western United States and examined the stress the region’s electric grid will come under by 2035 from growing EV ownership. In a little over a decade, they found, rapid EV growth alone could increase peak electricity demand by up to 25%, assuming a continued dominance of residential, nighttime charging.

To limit the high costs of all that new capacity for generating and storing electricity, the researchers say, drivers should move to daytime charging at work or public charging stations, which would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This finding has policy and investment implications for the region and its utilities, especially since California moved in late August to ban sales of gasoline-powered cars and light trucks starting in 2035.

“We encourage policymakers to consider utility rates that encourage day charging and incentivize investment in charging infrastructure to shift drivers from home to work for charging,” said the study’s co-senior author, Ram Rajagopal, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

There’s more at the original, and there’s no paywall to stymie you.

The authors believe that people should charge their Teslas and Chevy Dolts at work, rather than at home. Great idea, except there is no guarantee that your employer is going to add the infrastructure, and if he does, he’s going to need to recoup that cost: he’s going to charge employees for using the at-work charging stations, for both the installation costs and the sparktricity used.

One of the problems is the extreme egocentrism of the authors. It’s far too easy for people to think of their situations as the only situations. When they have an assigned parking space at a prestigious university, they might not consider that far more people work at places like Seven/Eleven, where management isn’t likely to run the power lines and install the stations for their minimum wage employees — who can’t afford a plug-in electric vehicle in the first place — to use. Perhaps they are unfamiliar with trades employees, who go to different jobsites across their area.

Once 50% of cars on the road are powered by electricity in the Western U.S. – of which about half the population lives in California – more than 5.4 gigawatts of energy storage would be needed if charging habits follow their current course. That’s the capacity equivalent of 5 large nuclear power reactors. A big shift to charging at work instead of home would reduce the storage needed for EVs to 4.2 gigawatts.

Storage capacity is a huge issue: solar plants generate exactly zero electricity at night, which means that charging your plug-in electric car after you get home from work means that most of the charging will be done after sundown. That means you will be drawing power not from the hundred-acre solar farm, but from the batteries to store the electricity the solar farm generated during the day.

More, electricity generated and going into the battery system before going to your home is less efficient than going from the solar plant directly to your home; there is increased energy loss due to the second stop.

Another issue with electricity pricing design is charging commercial and industrial customers big fees based on their peak electricity use. This can disincentivize employers from installing chargers, especially once half or more of their employees have EVs. The research team compared several scenarios of charging infrastructure availability, along with several different residential time-of-use rates and commercial demand charges. Some rate changes made the situation at the grid level worse, while others improved it. Nevertheless, a scenario of having charging infrastructure that encourages more daytime charging and less home charging provided the biggest benefits, the study found.

It also means that charging your car at work means that you will be paying not the residential power rate, which normally drops after 11:00 PM, but the commercial rate your employer is paying. It will cost you more to charge at work than at home, not even counting the charges the employer will have to put in place to pay for the employee charging stations.

It seems as though the global warming climate change emergency activists all had this great idea, that everyone should drive a plug-in electric car — excluding, of course, the activists who don’t think people should have privately owned vehicles in the first place — but they never really thought through the problems.

Posted on by

What a surprise! Lithium prices are increasing as countries push electric cars.

In the episode “Mudd’s Women” in the original series Star Trek, Harry Mudd and the three women he was taking to sell as wives to settlers are detoured to a planet inhabited solely by dilithium crystals miners. Captain Mudd tells the three women that they’ll now be wives to “lithium miners, rich lithium miners”. Who knew that this might actually be prescient?

As President Biden and his supervisors Administration push zero-emission automobiles, and have proposed to ban the sale of gasoline-or-diesel-powered personal vehicles by 2035, many people have said that this could only drive up the cost of such vehicles. 2035 is still a long (?) way off, but sales of electric vehicles in China are already having an effect. From The Wall Street Journal:

Electric-Car Demand Pushes Lithium Prices to Records

Driven by a surge in Chinese electric-vehicles sales, the sharp rise in a key commodity for batteries could slow adoption of EVs globally

By Joe Wallace and Hardika Singh | Wednesday, September 21, 2022 | 5:30 AM EDT

Surging prices for lithium are intensifying a race between auto makers to lock up supplies and raising concerns that a shortage of the battery metal could slow the adoption of electric vehicles.

Lithium carbonate prices in China, the benchmark in the fast-growing market, stand at about $71,000 a metric ton, according to price-assessment firm Benchmark Mineral Intelligence. That is almost four times as high as a year ago and just below the record set this March in yuan terms.

Lithium is an outlier in commodity markets that have broadly retreated in recent months, reflecting gloom over an economic outlook dimmed by the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate increases and stuttering growth in China and Europe. Brent crude oil and copper—commodities used throughout industry and transportation—have fallen about 15% and 7%, respectively, this quarter. Even European natural-gas prices, propelled higher for much of 2022 by Russia’s move to cut supplies, have dropped by 10% over the past month.

But lithium keeps rising, driven by a pickup in electric-vehicles sales in China, the world’s biggest market for EVs. Car purchases jumped after Shanghai eased Covid-19 lockdowns in June, juicing demand for lithium-ion batteries. The China Passenger Car Association forecasts six million new EVs will be sold in the country this year, double the 2021 level.

“Lithium is really following the Chinese EV market and that’s just taking off,” said Edward Meir, a metals consultant at brokerage ED&F Capital Markets. “This is a preview of what could await us in the U.S.”

Draining supplies further, power outages caused by a heat wave in central China curbed output of refined lithium carbonate and hydroxide, which go into battery cathodes. Suppliers in Sichuan province—which has a third of China’s lithium processing capacity—closed factories for several days and ran down inventories to meet their sales commitments, said Rystad Energy analyst Susan Zou.

There’s a lot more at the original.

The final quoted paragraph notes a temporary problem, though one which could always recur. But the steadily increasing demand for lithium, something the proposed policies in the United States will only exacerbate, is not going to be a temporary thing.

Plug-in electric vehicles are already expensive. In Economics 101 theory, increased demand generates increased production and supply, which should bring the costs of electric cars down, but that’s theory only. The basic theory does not account for shortages of essential materials for increasing production and supply, and the lithium shortage will not be the only one which will force the prices of electric cars higher. For example, as the demand for electricity greatly increases, and more transmission lines are needed to get the required power to homes across the nation, the price of the aluminum used in power transmission lines. The price of aluminum is already increasing, due to the increased demand for canned goods, and it can only go higher.

No one who knows the first thing about economics can be surprised at this, but it sometimes appears that the environmentalists don’t know that first thing. One thing is certain: they don’t actually care about the economics of what they want, and don’t care about how the costs of their proposals will affect Other people, especially the working-class people of this country.

Posted on by

The Dummkopf from Delaware really doesn’t have a clue Enjoy paying your heating bills this winter!

We noted, on September 19th, that President Joe Biden said that we should put things in perspective, that the “inflation rate, month-to-month, was up just an inch, hardly at all”, that we’re in the position where for the last several months it hasn’t spiked, “we’re basically even.”

Well, our distinguished President doesn’t have to worry about paying his heating bills this winter, but most Americans do:

A cheery fire in our wood stove in Jim Thorpe, December 18, 2016.

Here’s how much more you’ll pay to heat your home this winter

By Kelly Hayes | Tuesday, September 20, 2022 \ 11:41 AM EDT

Americans are likely going to pay more to heat their home over the winter months.

The average cost of heating a household is set to increase by 17.2% this winter, compared to winter last year, according to a forecast by the National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA), an educational and policy organization for federal programs that help low-income families pay their utility bills.

The article was illustrated with a nice, stock photo of a cheerily burning wood fire in a nice, upscale home fireplace, but I figured that, using my own photo from our previous home, was wiser for copyright purposes. Alas! Mrs Pico absolutely vetoed a wood-burning stove in our current house, because she says they make too much of a mess, so, to supplement the heat, and be a backup for when the sparktricity goes out — something not that infrequent here, and can be for several days out here in the country — we installed a propane fireplace.

The group expects the average winter heating bill to increase from $1,025 to $1,202, which would be the highest figure in over a decade.

U.S. residential electric bills are also forecast to increase 7.5% from 2021, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s latest short-term outlook.

There’s more at the original.

Gas fireplace in my computer room/den.

Mr Biden is wealthy, and even if he did have to pay his own electricity and gas bills — which, for his private homes, he does — the increased costs would be an insignificant matter to him. But an extra $177 for the average working-class family? That’s a big bite. In the past, I’d have compared that $177 to a week’s trip to the grocery store, but now that’s barely half a week!

Let’s tell the truth here: for all of their protestations that they care about ordinary Americans, the Democrats really don’t understand us. The Washington elites have plenty of money, and the increases in energy costs simply don’t matter that much to them. Their proposals to fight global warming climate change will add thousands to people’s electricity bills, because so much new infrastructure will have to be built to support the greatly increased demand for electricity as people have to charge their Chevy Dolts at home. Phasing out reliable, fossil-fuel burning power plants and replacing them with solar and wind power generating facilities will cost big bucks.

By 2050, the US will demand nearly 90% more power than it did in 2018, in a scenario in which all new passenger vehicles sold by 2030 are electric and buildings and factories also aggressively electrify, according to an analysis by Nikit Abhyankar, a senior scientist at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

Different scenarios will lead to a smaller increase in demand, but any changes which require more energy not from fossil fuels are going to lead to a huge increase in demand. Yet the projected increases in home heating costs are coming without any significant global warming climate change policies additions to current costs.

Perhaps President Biden doesn’t personally understand this, but his advisors certainly do, but that doesn’t matter: they just don’t care about what you have to pay, as long as they get their way.

Posted on by

Bidenflation The American working class are primarily Republican voters, so you can't expect the Biden Administration to consider them, can you?

I was wryly amused to see these two editorial links together on the front page of The Wall Street Journal’s website front page Wednesday morning. As President Joe Biden wants desperately to reduce inflation, with the midterm elections just 55 days away, it demonstrates the lack of thought the Administration has put into its policies.

Another Inflation Jolt for Markets

Investors get a reality check about prices and Fed tightening.

By The Editorial Board | Tuesday, September 13, 2022 | 6:54 PM EDT

Biden Administration officials have been claiming so confidently that inflation is under control and falling that investors may have believed it. Bad idea. Tuesday’s report on the consumer-price index for August showed inflation has remained high and sticky, and markets promptly fell out of bed.

And we mean from the top bunk. The 3.94% tumble in the Dow Jones Industrial Average was the worst day since 2020, and the declines in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq were worse. Investors apparently had believed the hopeful chatter that inflation was headed downward, and that the Federal Reserve wouldn’t need to raise interest rates so high as to court a recession. Investing lesson of the week: Never trust a politician.

Consumer prices overall rose 0.1% in August, after being flat in July. But the decline was almost entirely the result of falling energy prices. Gasoline fell 10.6% and fuel oil 5.9% in the month. That was a happy respite from the spring when gasoline prices averaged more than $5 a gallon nationwide, but prices at the pump are still up 25.6% in the last 12 months and still average $3.71 a gallon.

The larger problem is that the energy declines weren’t enough to offset price increases across nearly everything else. The 12-month inflation rate in August fell only to 8.3%, down from July’s 8.5%, but higher than the 8% to 8.1% that economists had expected.

Then there’s this, from Washington Post economics reporter and Editorial Board member Heather Long:

Hmmm: “Inflation has been eating up wage gains since April 2021 and shows little sign of significant easing.” People are getting poorer in real terms, and that has been the case really since Joe Biden became President.

Then there was this:

Biden Freezes Oil and Gas Leases

Calling Joe Manchin: Interior uses ‘sue and settle’ to suspend Trump-era approvals.

By The Editorial Board | Tuesday, September 13, 2022 | 6:53 PM EDT

Joe Manchin’s deal with Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer isn’t looking so good for the West Virginian, and the latest evidence is a Biden Administration settlement with green groups that stops previously approved oil and gas leases.

The Interior Department last week agreed to conduct additional climate reviews for five federal oil and gas lease sales held in 2019 and 2020 that were challenged by environmental groups. Activists claimed the Trump Administration didn’t sufficiently study the climate impact of the leases under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Rather than defend the earlier environmental reviews, the Biden Administration surrendered to their progressive friends. According to last week’s legal settlement, the climate reviews will incorporate the “social cost” of greenhouse gas emissions that could result from the leases. This takes into account indirect global costs of emissions such as property damage from natural disasters, risk of conflict over resources, reduced agricultural productivity from drought, and more.

By including the social cost in the NEPA reviews, the Administration will be able to claim the leases have a significant negative environmental impact even when they don’t and then seek to cancel them. Alternatively, the Administration could try to force oil and gas producers to mitigate their emissions by helping fund its climate agenda.

While the settlement doesn’t outright cancel the leases, it will effectively freeze their development. Interior has agreed not to approve new drilling permits or rights-of-way on the leases until it completes the climate reviews. Even after those reviews are done and if Interior allows development, green groups will still be able to challenge the reviews and leases afresh in court.

There’s more at the original. The Wall Street Journal has a serious paywall, but even if you’re not a subscriber, you can get a couple of free articles a month.

The Biden Administration wants to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and the use of fossil fuels to do so, but freezing oil and gas extraction leases won’t do anything about that. It simply means that more oil-and-gas production will come from overseas, and less from the United States, which means more of United States’ workers money will be going to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela rather than staying at home. Even if you don’t like those evil oil corporations, it means that there will be fewer American oil company workers, workers who earn what the Biden Administration likes to call “good, union wages,” will have jobs while more men overseas will be drawing paychecks from American dollars.

All of this makes American workers poorer. The American oil rig worker who makes big bucks per hour, but is getting no hours isn’t helping his family, and isn’t helping our economy. The oilfield worker who is unemployed because the Biden Administration is throwing obstacles into American production isn’t spending money at Dunkin’ Donuts for a coffee and bagel on the work in the morning, is buying fewer clothes because his work clothes aren’t getting worn out as fast, and his lack of work affects a lot of other people downstream.

The economic measure I find most important is actually a simple one, the velocity of money. The velocity of money is the frequency at which one unit of currency is used to purchase domestically- produced goods and services within a given time period. In other words, it is the number of times one dollar is spent to buy goods and services per unit of time. The lower the velocity of money, the less positive impact a dollar has on the economy. If the gasoline you buy is extracted in Kuwait, it may cost the same amount as if it had been extracted in Texas, but the dollars spent on Kuwaiti wages disappear from our economy while the dollars spent on Texas workers stay here. The more gasoline and diesel fuel we produce in the United States, the faster he velocity of money in the United States, and the more benefits and wealth accrue to American workers and their families.

There is another part not being considered in all of this. If we assume that we can move away from an energy economy based on petroleum, as the climate change activists want, and we can power our homes and cars and economy on ‘renewable,’ non-polluting energy, the more petroleum we buy from overseas because we are producing less here during that transition, then the more of the value our natural resources we have just wasted, left in the ground with no value. We will be making ourselves poorer during the transition.

Of course, the Biden Administration’s climate change activists can’t see that part, because they never think things through, and never really consider the economic impact on American workers in their plans. But hey, the American working class are primarily conservative, primarily Republican voters, so you can’t expect the Democrats to consider them, can you?

Posted on by

Well, imagine that! As the Feds add tax credits to buy plug in electric cars, manufacturers raise the prices of them

The so-called Inflation Reduction Act was supposed to, you know, reduce inflation, right? A lot of people thought it was festooned with all sorts of things which had nothing to do with inflation, and one of those things was the Qualified Plug-in Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Credit:

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

Enacted August 16, 2022

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-169) amends the Qualified Plug-in Electric Drive Motor Vehicle Credit (IRC 30D), now known as the Clean Vehicle Credit, and adds a new requirement for final assembly in North America that takes effect on August 16, 2022. Additional provisions will go into effect on January 1, 2023. Further guidance on these provisions is forthcoming. Find more information about the credit from the Internal Revenue Service.

List of Vehicles with Final Assembly in North America

The following table provides a list of Model Year 2022 and early Model Year 2023 vehicles with final assembly in North America based on data submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and FuelEconomy.gov as of August 1, 2022. Note that for some manufacturers, the build location may vary based on the specific vehicle, trim, or the date in the Model Year when it was produced because some models are produced in multiple locations. The build location of a particular vehicle should be confirmed by referring to its Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) using the VIN decoder below or an information label affixed to the vehicle.

As vehicle manufacturers continue to submit the applicable vehicle identification information to the relevant government agencies, this list will be updated as more information becomes available.

NOTE: Some manufacturers that have vehicles assembled in North America have reached a cap of 200,000 EV credits used and are therefore not currently eligible for the Clean Vehicle Credit.

Of course, the Europeans are just hopping mad that the tax credit only applies to vehicles whose final assembly takes place in North America, but wait until they figure out that Canada and Mexico are in North America. The Europeans would much rather put Canadians to work than Americans.

The tax credit is up to $7,500 for purchase of a new, plug-in electric, and since President Biden and his supervisors subordinates very much want to have Americans gobbling the things up, that $7,500 credit is supposed to help consumers who just can’t quite afford the things be able to say, “OK, yeah, with this tax credit, we can go ahead and buy a Ford Mustang Mach E!”

Oops!

Ford hikes price of electric Mustang Mach-E by as much as $8,475 due to ‘significant’ battery cost increases

by Michael Wayland | Published Friday, August 26, 2022 | 10:59 AM EDT | Updated Friday, August 26, 2022 | 2:07 PM EDT

  • Ford Motor is hiking the starting prices of its electric Mustang Mach-E crossover by more than $8,000 for some models.
  • The increased prices will go into effect for new orders placed starting Tuesday, when order banks reopen for the 2023 model year.
  • Ford said the markups are due to “significant” material cost increases, continued supply chain strains and market conditions.

DETROIT – Ford Motor is hiking the starting prices of its electric Mustang Mach-E crossover by more than $8,000 for some models, as it reopens order banks for the 2023 model year.

The company on Thursday said the markups – ranging between $3,000 and $8,475, depending on the model and battery – are due to “significant material cost increases, continued strain on key supply chains, and rapidly evolving market conditions.”

The Mach-E is the latest electric vehicle to experience a price increase, as raw material costs for batteries for electric vehicles more than doubled during the coronavirus pandemic.

The starting prices for the 2023 Mustang Mach-E will now range from about $47,000 to $70,000, up from roughly $44,000 to $62,000 for the 2022 model year. Prices exclude taxes and shipping/delivery costs.

Ford earlier this month also raised the starting prices of its electric F-150 Lightning pickup by between $6,000 and $8,500, depending on the model. The automaker cited similar reasons for those increases, specifically related to raw materials such as lithium, cobalt and nickel that are used in batteries for the vehicles.

There’s more at the original, but I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!

Of course, the various vehicle price ranges are based on that most important characteristic: range. The ones that see price increases of ‘only’ $3,000 are the ones with the lowest battery capacity and therefore shortest range. You buy the biggest battery pack available, and you can get a listed 305 miles on a full charge. Of course, you’re also going to be getting that $8,475 price increase! We don’t know yet what the 2023 Mustang Mach E will have for a Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price, but the chart to the right shows MSRPs for the four versions of the 2022 model.

The “Select” model had a range of 211 miles. It was assumed that the 2023 MSRPs would see an increase anyway, but the new price hikes, well, you’d be paying $70,000 or more for the GT model.

I must say that I am amused. Who could ever have guessed that this would happen?

Posted on by

Economics aren’t #woke

My good friend Robert Stacy McCain recently wrote about an article in Jezebel which claimed that normal men were going “unpartnered” because women’s “relationship standards” had been raised. Women might be willing to occasionally copulate with said lonely guys, but they weren’t really interested in anything more serious. I found the math strained, because unless you include homosexual males, the very people who ought to be excluded in an article about how normal men are having more difficulty finding women with whom to have serious relationships, the number of “partnered” men ought to equal the number of “partnered” normal women. Given that women slightly outnumber men, and that women live longer than men, the math Jezebel cited just doesn’t work out.

I was reminded of Mr McCain’s article when I read this one in The Wall Street Journal.

Inflation Widens Married Couples’ Money Lead Over Their Single Friends

Rapidly rising prices and more than two years of living in a pandemic increase the financial stress on those without pooled assets

by Julia Carpenter | Tuesday, August 16, 2022 | 7:14 AM EDT

It is better, financially, to be married than single, as has almost always been the case. But the money gap between young married couples and singles has widened, thanks to inflation and rising home prices.

The median net worth of married couples 25 to 34 years old was nearly nine times as much as the median net worth of single households in 2019, according to the most recent data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. In 2010, married households’ median net worth was four times as much. And now, after a spell of rapid inflation and more than two years of pandemic living, single people are getting left further behind, say economists at the Fed and elsewhere.

“This 25-to-34-year-old age is a time of transition, it’s a time of household formation, and I think it matters whether or not you can pool your financial resources with someone else,” said Lowell Ricketts, a data scientist for the Institute for Economic Equity at the St. Louis Fed.

Married people are being tested by inflation, too. It is just that they have a larger, shared cushion, often with two incomes and pooled assets. They hold a greater concentration of wealth and considerably less debt, according to research from the St. Louis Fed.

Having combined assets was particularly helpful over the past decade as many households’ wealth was compounded by rising housing prices and a strong stock market.

As people marry later, the number of sole-person households is growing, which means more single people are tackling multiple financial challenges entirely on their own. Over the past four decades, the number of sole-person households has nearly doubled, according to data from Freddie Mac. And by delaying marriage, many now struggle to access money milestones at the ages previous generations achieved them.

The article continues to tell us the woes of a 27-year-old single woman in Columbus, Ohio, who recently got a raise, which is allowing her to start saving a bit, but, for her, home ownership is still out of the question. The Journal’s photo of her slicing zucchini in the small, cramped, and cluttered kitchen in her rental apartment says a lot: she has a roof over her head and food on her table, but she’s still living a fairly modest lifestyle. To relate this to Mr McCain’s article, I will note that the woman in question does not really meet contemporary standards of physical attractiveness.

Further down:

When it comes to building wealth via homeownership, finding a smaller starter home—once the gateway for single people becoming homeowners—remains especially difficult as prices remain high, say economists. Housing affordability in June 2022 hit its worst level since June 1989, and home prices are up 44% over the past two years, according to data from real-estate brokerage Redfin Corp. With housing prices so high and starter-home inventory so low, more single people are struggling to find affordable houses to buy.

So, what happened in 1989? An economic downturn happened, a housing market crash. Interest rates soared again, and housing prices had to fall, or houses just wouldn’t sell. An economic downturn which eventually cost the elder George Bush the presidency in the 1992 election. We saw the same thing in the early 2000s, as housing just plain skipped the 2001-2 recession — I was amazed at how much concrete we were selling for homebuilding even as the unemployment rate soared — but the sub=prime mortgage lending market collapsed in 2007-8, and people who had bought during the bubble, with adjustable-rate mortgages were defaulting at record paces.

I can see something similar in the not-too-distant future.

The Journal article continues along the theme of singles, and primarily single women, being priced out of the housing market.

This is where married couples have one of their largest advantages. Applying for a mortgage, these couples can work together to create an attractive application as well as amass the necessary money for a healthy down payment.

Single women face additional hurdles to generating wealth.

The gender wage gap begins to widen as early as three years after college graduation, a Wall Street Journal analysis found. Women also live significantly longer than men, which puts added pressure on them to finance their retirement years solo.

“These are scary times for anyone, but they’re particularly scary times, I think, for the reasons we have cited, for single women,” said Jill Gianola, a financial planner and the founder of Gianola Financial Planning.

This, you see, is the problem: social customs may have changed, customs which no longer have others asking, “What’s wrong with him?”, or her, if they don’t get married by the time they’re 22. But economic laws aren’t #woke, economic laws don’t care that you want to party hearty until you’re thirty. The reality of economics and the passage of time mean that if you are delaying adulthood, you are also delaying your economic advance. It might be more fun to take your whole paycheck and spend it wastefully, but those are years in which you should be building your career and setting yourself up for financial success later in life.

There was more in the Journal article, this time about a married couple, a couple which appear to have married a bit late, but one which were able to work out the husband’s pre-existing $10,000+ credit card debt by virtue of being serious and by the fact that they were paying for one residence for the two of them. When economic problems arise, there are two of them to work things out.

The way people behaved in our economy and our society in the 1950s might seem just horribly, horribly old fashioned and just not with it, but the simple fact is that they worked for people, because they made economic sense.