So this is where the Trump appointees will begin attacking each other and possibly Trump, and Donnie will either just ignore things or have to take a stand that will limit his "change agents" abilities to make change.
RFJ Jr. is a nut, but his stance on food makes sense. We eat processed shit...and need to cut it out. To enable that, something like the "fairness" in the Atlantic article is necessary. To do that, he'll need to fight the Walmart and Amazon lobbyists. Trump will have to decide.... health or money.
I've got little doubt where that goes...meaning RFJ gets pissed off and begins to lose faith and interest in the gig while remembering why he referred to Trump as "a terrible human being", "a sociopath", and "the worse president ever" before selling his soul to the orange overlord.
I dont know if this is an accurate theory. Most small town grocers are sourced by large grocery coops, which share the profits with the independent retailers...so they have competitive costs.
Perhaps the bigger issue is $ stores moving into these markets, sucking up the center store sales. And obviously city markets need to deal with crime/shrink.
Interesting Atlantic story about food deserts. What hit me is that without the repeal of this regulation, inflation over the last 40 years would have been higher...or if we tried to brink it back, it would increase inflation. Not that I am arguing to keep or repeal...not sure where I stand on it.
The Atlantic writes:
"Food deserts are not an inevitable consequence of poverty or low population density, and they didnât materialize around the country for no reason. Something happened. That something was a specific federal policy change in the 1980s. It was supposed to reward the biggest retail chains for their efficiency. Instead, it devastated poor and rural communities by pushing out grocery stores and inflating the cost of food. Food deserts will not go away until that mistake is reversed."
So this is where the Trump appointees will begin attacking each other and possibly Trump, and Donnie will either just ignore things or have to take a stand that will limit his "change agents" abilities to make change.
RFJ Jr. is a nut, but his stance on food makes sense. We eat processed shit...and need to cut it out. To enable that, something like the "fairness" in the Atlantic article is necessary. To do that, he'll need to fight the Walmart and Amazon lobbyists. Trump will have to decide.... health or money.
I've got little doubt where that goes...meaning RFJ gets pissed off and begins to lose faith and interest in the gig while remembering why he referred to Trump as "a terrible human being", "a sociopath", and "the worse president ever" before selling his soul to the orange overlord.
Interesting Atlantic story about food deserts. What hit me is that without the repeal of this regulation, inflation over the last 40 years would have been higher...or if we tried to brink it back, it would increase inflation. Not that I am arguing to keep or repeal...not sure where I stand on it.
The Atlantic writes:
"Food deserts are not an inevitable consequence of poverty or low population density, and they didnât materialize around the country for no reason. Something happened. That something was a specific federal policy change in the 1980s. It was supposed to reward the biggest retail chains for their efficiency. Instead, it devastated poor and rural communities by pushing out grocery stores and inflating the cost of food. Food deserts will not go away until that mistake is reversed."
The Atlantic argues that the mistake that needs to be reversed is the decision - made by the Reagan administration, and virtually coinciding with the emergence of food desert, not to enforce the Robinson-Patman Act, which bans price discrimination, "making it illegal for suppliers to offer preferential deals and for retailers to demand them."
"If you were to plot the end of Robinson-Patman enforcement and the subsequent restructuring of the retail industry on a timeline," The Atlantic writes, "it would closely parallel the emergence and spread of food deserts. Locally owned retail businesses were once a mainstay of working-class and rural communities. Their inability to obtain fair prices beginning in the 1980s hit these retailers especially hard because their customers could least afford to pay more."
The Atlantic writes that "the problem of food deserts will not be solved without the rediscovery of the Robinson-Patman Act. Requiring a level pricing playing field would restore local retailersâ ability to compete. This would provide immediate relief to entrepreneurs who have recently opened grocery stores in food deserts, only to find that their inability to buy on the same terms as Walmart and Dollar General makes survival difficult. With local grocery stores back on the scene in these neighborhoods, chain supermarkets may well return, too, lured by a force far more powerful than tax breaks: competition."
There is, of course, a political component to all this:
"The Biden administration has begun to connect the dots. Alvaro Bedoya, a member of the Federal Trade Commission, has been an outspoken proponent of Robinson-Patman enforcement, and the FTC under Chair Lina Khan is widely expected to file its first such case in the coming months. But Donald Trumpâs election casts doubts on the long-term prospects for a Robinson-Patman revival
"Although the law has garnered support among some GOP House members, powerful donors are calling for corporate-friendly appointments to the FTC. Hopefully the incoming Trump administration realizes that the rural and working-class voters who propelled him to power are among those most affected by food deserts - and by the broader decline in local self-reliance that has swept across small-town America since the 1980s. A powerful tool for reversing that decline is available. Any leader who truly cared about the nationâs left-behind communities would use it."
Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, says if he lived in a swing state, he would vote for Harris, in spite of having no sympathy for the leadership of the Democratic Party. He analyzes how America's social fabric is unraveling and how this explains Trump's mass appeal. He warns that rebellion within the military remains possible, discusses the role of Christian nationalism in the armed forces, and examines how economic inequality has destabilized American society.
Jack Hough: Got it. The last question I wanted to ask you about the debt is just, it's the toughest one, I guess. How do you fix it? How do you fix everything? You must look at where the money goes, right? You must think to yourself, "Boy, if I ran this place for a year, we'd get things ship shape around here." I know it's not easy, but do you see any low hanging fruit? I know that this gets into politics and policy choices and so forth, but are there any paths that you see to getting spending down or getting the deficits under control that are more benign than others?
Jonathan Pingle: I'm afraid to have actually the opposite answer to what you're getting at. That is that by waiting, we've made many of decisions increasingly difficult. Think about it this way. When I was born, defense spending was about 9% of nominal GDP. When I graduated from high school, it was about 6% of nominal GDP, now, it's 3%, and the Congressional budget office predicts it's headed towards 2% of nominal GDP. That has freed up a lot of economic resources for us to fund other parts of mandatory spending and other spending priorities.
Jack Hough: It sounds like great news so far. Tell me, what wise choices have we made?
Jonathan Pingle: The problem we have is defense spending's not going from three to zero. We've exhausted, to some extent, the ability to just shrink our other spending in order to free up more resources. We really are now at a point where we have to make some choices. We have to make some choices about do we start to restrain the growth of the old age programs? Do we raise taxes? How do we want to structure the federal budget to put it on a more sustainable path going forward? That's going to be trade-offs between a lot of different interests, whether it's funding for education, the inner cities, transportation infrastructure, the military, defense, environment, the national park, I mean, everything that Americans use and enjoy, the weather service, the national hurricane... List on and on and on, the role and features of the government in our society and economy. We're at a point now where we're going to have to start deciding how to fund it better and also what we really want to fund.
Jack Hough: But Jonathan, we're big, right? The economy is big, and when you're big and you spend a lot, you're supposed to get economies of scale. That's how Costco works, right? You load up with so many rolls of paper towels, they give you a good deal. Let's put it this way, even if you don't have the specific prescription, there is a way to run this economy with the amount of money we have at our disposal that could be sustainable and manageable. Right? This can still be done, would you say or?
Jonathan Pingle: Oh, no. I do. No, I do think it is. It's not really for me to say, "Hey, we should get rid of this component of the Department of Labor's program on X or the Commerce Department office of Y." But you can make a case that certainly there are big parts of these agencies that might be able to run better as well. But overall, when you look at the budget and you think about some of the big parts, I mean, they really are some of the mandatory spending programs like Medicare and Social Security and even Medicaid. When you start to think about the remainder, that's actually a relatively small part. Now, there's probably room to better manage it as well. I think you're right that if you think about the size of the economy, we should be able to effectively fund and run a government. But we've gotten ourselves into a position now where revenues and spending are not aligned and going forward, they're not projected to align.
Jack Hough: I'm just curious, would you say that you personally are an optimistic investor when you're setting aside money and you're like, let's say, talking with your family, do you say, "Hey, we've got some problems, but things are going to be okay long-term, this is still a place of opportunity,"? Or do you say, "Hey, you know what I've seen under the hood on this thing, and we've got some big issues here. There's trouble brewing." How optimistic are you as a long-term investor?
Jonathan Pingle: First of all, I love the United States of America, and I think we are the greatest country on earth, and I am optimistic about our future. However, when I look at our federal budget, I think it is definitely concerning. Just to go back to one of your earlier questions on things that break and pick up on this defense spending point, the US is at risk of having to pay a premium to be able to finance the magnitude of this debt over time. If we do that, that's only going to make the spending and revenue decisions harder because we're going to crowd out important investments that we expect the government to make on infrastructure education or elsewhere if we are continuing, not only to pile up debt, but then also if the private markets start to add a 10th, another 10th, and another 10th and another 10th as a cost of financing.
But there's also these implicit costs they have been taking, take the defense spending experiment for a second, or the thought exercise. Right now defense spending is a share of nominal GDP is 3%, but let's say it was still 5% of nominal GDP, and then you thought about the US's ability to project power, fund allies, et cetera. Would we be facing the same geopolitical environment we are now the same volatility in macro markets that that's caused periodically in the last few years. I think that's a good question of whether or not we're already paying some of these costs from having allowed the budget outlook to deteriorate to the extent it has.
Forget about Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet. The richest person in the world is probably found amongst the list of remaining dictators. For example, it was revealed that both Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak were rich beyond belief when their accounts were uncovered after they fell from power. They are not the only ones, as suggested in this article. Yet, we do not know who is richest â and we probably never will. Dictators are secretive about their wealth and hide it from the public eye. In addition, it is often hard to know where the stateâs coffers stop, and where the pockets of the individual start. Therefore, dictators usually do not figure on lists over the richest people in the world, including Forbesâ annual rankings of the Worldâs Billionaires. This is problematic for a number of reasons.
While we occasionally see wealthy self-made businessmen turning authoritarian, most dictators make their wealth while in office either through embezzlement, fraud, or shady deals; or they inherit it as part of the governing family, such as the Saud family who are worth up to $1.4 trillion. Many would, therefore, perceive their fortune as illegitimate, and, as a result, most dictators have good reasons to be secretive about their wealth. Corruption is an issue of particular concern to many people, and even though dictators are not accountable through free and fair elections, they occasionally fall out with the masses, and risk sparking public outrage; and perhaps being removed in a revolution.<1> Hence, being officially filthy rich through ill-gotten gains is a bad survival strategy. In addition, because they risk having their wealth confiscated if they are removed, dictators store much of their fortune abroad in secret accounts. And to be sure that they are not sanctioned by the international community or exposed, they often hide their money in other peopleâs names. It is estimated that 57% of the Gulf countries financial wealth is held offshore, while the number for Russia is 50% and 30% for Africa.<2> Thus, while Putin earned roughly $135,000 in 2018 from his official salary, a military pension, interest on savings, and investment gains, and officially lives in a small apartment, we have good reasons to suspect that he is far, far richer â some even speculate that he is the richest person in the world.
While these examples are fascinating, it is also deeply problematic that so much illegitimate wealth lies in the hands of individuals and is hidden away from the publicâs eyes. Dictators are squeezing their â often very poor â populations to live lavish lifestyles. Dictators and their inner circles are, in some cases, so wealthy that redistributing their wealth could make a significant difference for the population they govern. Uncovering the fortune of dictators and informing people about their wealth is the first step towards holding them accountable and putting the pressure on for a different form of government. In addition, we now and then see news articles claiming that democratic leaders are very well paid. For example, this list of the 20 of the highest paid world leaders by USA Today is dominated by democratic leaders. If we do not take into account the wealth of autocrats, we risk holding up an unfair comparison to democracy which can lead to resentment of democratic politicians and make people too eager to drain the swamp by voting for a strong man. In fact, members of America's Congress are paupers compared to their Chinese counterparts. While we should have a discussion about whether democratic leaders earn too much (or too little) and the extent to which they are corrupt, the advantage of democracy is that voters can hold their leaders accountable through the ballot box. Ultimately, I believe that one of the best arguments for democracy is that dictatorships far too often become a rich manâs club, where a wealthy group are pillaging their country and redesigning the economic system to a kleptocracy benefitting the few instead of the many. And getting out of this equilibrium (again) can be very hard.
A report published Monday by the humanitarian group Oxfam warns that decades of intensifying inequality have left the world in the grip of a "global oligarchy" under which the richest sliver of humanity owns more wealth than nearly everyone else combinedâa state of affairs that undermines democratic institutions and international cooperation on climate, pandemics, and other crises.
Oxfam's analysis of data from the investment banking giant UBS found that the fortune controlled by the top 1% is now larger than the collective wealth of the bottom 95%.
Such inequality pervades the global economy, Oxfam noted, with a small number of corporations dominating key sectors. Nearly half of the global seed market, for example, is controlled by just two corporations, Bayer and Corteva. At the same time, just three U.S.-based financial behemothsâBlackrock, State Street, and Vanguardâoversee nearly 20% of the world's investable assets, around $20 trillion.
What's more, such massive corporations are increasingly run by billionaires: According to Oxfam, a billionaire either heads or is the top shareholder of more than a third of the world's leading 50 corporations.
"While we often hear about great power rivalries undermining multilateralism, it is clear that extreme inequality is playing a massive role," Oxfam executive director Amitabh Behar said in a statement. "In recent years the ultra-wealthy and powerful corporations have used their vast influence to undermine efforts to solve major global problems such as tackling tax dodging, making Covid-19 vaccines available to the world, and canceling the albatross of sovereign debt." (...)
The U.S. isnât fighting a war, a crisis or a recession. Yet the federal government is borrowing as if it were.
This yearâs budget deficit is on track to top $1.9 trillion, or more than 6% of economic output, a threshold reached only around World War II, the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic. Publicly held federal debtâthe sum of all deficitsâjust passed $28 trillion or almost 100% of GDP.
If Congress does nothing, the total debt will climb by another $22 trillion through 2034. Interest costs alone are poised to exceed annual defense spending.
But the countryâs fiscal trajectory merits only sporadic mentions by the major-party presidential nominees, let alone a serious plan to address it. Instead, the candidates are tripping over each other to make expensive promises to voters.
Economists and policymakers already worry that the growing debt pile could put upward pressure on interest rates, restraining economic growth, crowding out other priorities and potentially impairing Washingtonâs ability to borrow in case of a war or another crisis. There have been scattered warning signs already, including downgrades to the U.S. credit rating and lackluster demand for Treasury debt at some auctions.
Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, and GOP rival Donald Trump arenât the same on fiscal policy. She has outlined or endorsed enough fiscal measuresâtax increases or spending cutsâto plausibly pay for much of her agenda. He has not.
Still, both Harris and Trump were parts of administrations that helped produce those deficits. Both have promised to protect the biggest drivers of rising spendingâSocial Security and Medicare. And both want to extend trillions of dollars in tax cuts set to lapse at the end of 2025, amid bipartisan agreement that federal income taxes shouldnât rise for at least 97% of households.
When your estimates/data is this far off, you're bound to have those scream conspiracy...or at the least, incompetence.
The New York Times reports that "the U.S. economy added far fewer jobs in 2023 and early 2024 than previously reported, a sign that cracks in the labor market are more severe — and began forming earlier — than initially believed.
"On Wednesday, the Labor Department said that monthly payroll figures overstated job growth by roughly 818,000 in the 12 months that ended in March. That suggests employers added about 174,000 jobs per month during that period, down from the previously reported pace of about 242,000 jobs — a downward revision of about 28 percent.
"The revisions, which are preliminary, are part of an annual process in which monthly estimates, based on surveys, are reconciled with more accurate but less timely records from state unemployment offices. The new figures, once finalized, will be incorporated into official government employment statistics early next year.
"The updated numbers are the latest sign of vulnerability in the job market, which until recently had appeared rock solid despite months of high interest rates and economists’ warnings of an impending recession. More recent data, which wasn’t affected by the revisions, suggest job growth slowed further in the spring and summer, and the unemployment rate, though still relatively low at 4.3 percent, has been gradually rising."
Yeah, but the Fed is using these numbers for decision making purposes, afaik.
When your estimates/data is this far off, you're bound to have those scream conspiracy...or at the least, incompetence.
The New York Times reports that "the U.S. economy added far fewer jobs in 2023 and early 2024 than previously reported, a sign that cracks in the labor market are more severe â and began forming earlier â than initially believed.
"On Wednesday, the Labor Department said that monthly payroll figures overstated job growth by roughly 818,000 in the 12 months that ended in March. That suggests employers added about 174,000 jobs per month during that period, down from the previously reported pace of about 242,000 jobs â a downward revision of about 28 percent.
"The revisions, which are preliminary, are part of an annual process in which monthly estimates, based on surveys, are reconciled with more accurate but less timely records from state unemployment offices. The new figures, once finalized, will be incorporated into official government employment statistics early next year.
"The updated numbers are the latest sign of vulnerability in the job market, which until recently had appeared rock solid despite months of high interest rates and economistsâ warnings of an impending recession. More recent data, which wasnât affected by the revisions, suggest job growth slowed further in the spring and summer, and the unemployment rate, though still relatively low at 4.3 percent, has been gradually rising."
Like a globe-spanning tornado that touches down with little predictability, deep economic anxieties are leaving a trail of political turmoil and violence across poor and rich countries alike. (...)
The causes, context and conditions underlying these disruptions vary widely from country to country. But a common thread is clear: rising inequality, diminished purchasing power and growing anxiety that the next generation will be worse off than this one.
The result is that citizens in many countries who face a grim economic outlook have lost faith in the ability of their governments to cope â and are striking back.
The backlash has often targeted liberal democracy and democratic capitalism, with populist movements springing up on both the left and right. âAn economic malaise and a political malaise are feeding each other,â said Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University. (...)
âThere is a problem of representation and discontent,â Mr. Guzmán said. âThat is a combination that leads to social unrest.â (...)
Overall, Europeans have felt that their wages are not going as far as they used to. Inflation reached nearly 11 percent at one point in 2022, chipping away at incomes. Roughly a third of people in the European Union believe their standards of living will decline over the next five years, according to a recent survey.
Of all things, Q-Tips brand cotton swabs has greatly reduced the amount of cotton on the tips making them more of a dangerous pointy object than useful.
Another venerable trusted old brand, trashed. Shoulda just left it it alone and raised the price.
Maybe it's just that your ears are getting bigger.
Of all things, Q-Tips brand cotton swabs has greatly reduced the amount of cotton on the tips making them more of a dangerous pointy object than useful.
Another venerable trusted old brand, trashed. Shoulda just left it it alone and raised the price.
