3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Being poor isn't a way of life most people aspire towards.

 

I realize that this is is your schtick, but it really has nothing to do with income but more an appreciation for living simply and being environmentally conscious.

53 minutes ago, Kz! said:

How so? What's the "shift in the manner of consumption?"

 

People are buying things differently. There has been a massive shift in where people are obtaining goods, so places like Amazon, Wal-Mart, and large grocery chains are taking advantage. In some ways, the pandemic merely accelerated trends that were already in place. In other ways, reoriented them.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The media sensationalism about inflation is nauseating.

Of course there's inflation over last year - gas prices bottomed out due to low demand during the pandemic. The entire supply chain has been readjusting continuously as people went from being in the office and eating at restaurants to being at home and requiring more from grocery stores and online retailers. Now it's reverting back closer to the norm, while suppliers are having to ramp back up while dealing with local Covid outbreaks impacting labor.

Demand is way up while supply is lagging. That means costs of goods is going to go up. 

I'm sure the monetary policy is contributing, but I don't think as much as the simple supply/demand. Which is not something a president can readily fix, regardless. Though the president will always get blame/credit.

It's a combination of factors. The pandemic crushed prices last year, so the year over year comparisons are going to look worse. The more relevant metric is to look at the change over 2 years, so you are comparing to the last normalized economy. On top of that, we are seeing prices higher due to supply chains that aren't functioning, meaning supply can't keep up with demand. You can't simply shut down and then restart supply chains on a dime. These problems have been exacerbated by ridiculous regulations and union contracts that make increasing the workload all but impossible (no overtime, can't stack containers more than 2 high, etc.). Finally, in energy, the shift to ESG investment is making it impossible for swing producers, refineries, shippers etc. to access capital. One of the largest US Jones Act shippers that focuses on refined products from the gulf to the East Coast filed for BK, was bought by a financial player and has scrapped a ton of vessels. 

Add loose monetary policy and free money on top of that and you get spiking demand and constrained supply.

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I realize that this is is your schtick, but it really has nothing to do with income but more an appreciation for living simply and being environmentally conscious.

No. It is asking people to do with less because you think it's better for the overall good. We're a capitalist society. If I want to spend millions of dollars a year on gasoline for my car collection, that's my prerogative. 

FWIW, I drive an electric car. So don't blame me.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

No. It is asking people to do with less because you think it's better for the overall good. We're a capitalist society. If I want to spend millions of dollars a year on gasoline for my car collection, that's my prerogative. 

FWIW, I drive an electric car. So don't blame me.

 

It's better for the overall good, but I also find it to be personally gratifying. That's just me, though. I just don't need much to be entertained. Even in normal times, I pretty much stay home and entertain myself

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

It's a combination of factors. The pandemic crushed prices last year, so the year over year comparisons are going to look worse. The more relevant metric is to look at the change over 2 years, so you are comparing to the last normalized economy. On top of that, we are seeing prices higher due to supply chains that aren't functioning, meaning supply can't keep up with demand. You can't simply shut down and then restart supply chains on a dime. These problems have been exacerbated by ridiculous regulations and union contracts that make increasing the workload all but impossible (no overtime, can't stack containers more than 2 high, etc.). Finally, in energy, the shift to ESG investment is making it impossible for swing producers, refineries, shippers etc. to access capital. One of the largest US Jones Act shippers that focuses on refined products from the gulf to the East Coast filed for BK, was bought by a financial player and has scrapped a ton of vessels. 

Add loose monetary policy and free money on top of that and you get spiking demand and constrained supply.

The Jones Act should go. 

It won't, because "murka first" is economically illiterate.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

No. It is asking people to do with less because you think it's better for the overall good. We're a capitalist society. If I want to spend millions of dollars a year on gasoline for my car collection, that's my prerogative. 

FWIW, I drive an electric car. So don't blame me.

To be fair, he didn't ask anything from anybody.  He just said if that's the way you're already living your life, then the supply chain issues don't have much effect on you.

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

It's better for the overall good, but I also find it to be personally gratifying. That's just me, though. I just don't need much to be entertained. Even in normal times, I pretty much stay home and entertain myself.

And that's fine FOR YOU. 

I like to spend money on stupid crap. That's my choice. 

Asking people to do with less and change behavior to make up for government incompetence is the antithesis of what this country is founded upon.

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

These shortages are just as much about overconsumption as anything. Americans simply can't be happy unless they're buying all of the things all of the time. If modesty and sustainability are already a way of life for you, you'd hardly notice a thing.

 

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

To be fair, he didn't ask anything from anybody.  He just said if that's the way you're already living your life, then the supply chain issues don't have much effect on you.

Huh? He was chastising "Americans"

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The Jones Act should go. 

It won't, because "murka first" is economically illiterate.

Since I own Jones Act assets, I strongly disagree with this position. 

Self-interest baby.

Just now, vikas83 said:

And that's fine FOR YOU. 

I like to spend money on stupid crap. That's my choice. 

Asking people to do with less and change behavior to make up for government incompetence is the antithesis of what this country is founded upon.

 

Right, but you're probably also not complaining about the price or things, so fine.

People can buy all they want for all I care, but they could also not be a bunch of crybabies when the availability/affordability of non-essential items becomes something less than ideal

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

As the financial investor that purchased those assets, I strongly disagree with this position. 

as an owner of multiple assets .. I don't see what the fuss about inflation is...

Just now, vikas83 said:

 

Huh? He was chastising "Americans"

He said 

Quote

If modesty and sustainability are already a way of life for you, you'd hardly notice a thing.

He's just saying the benefits of modesty and sustainability.  He's not saying you have to partake in it.

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Right, but you're probably also not complaining about the price or things, so fine.

People can buy all they want for all I care, but they could also not be a bunch of crybabies when the availability/affordability of non-essential items becomes something less than ideal

Fair enough, and I couldn't care less about prices. But adding gasoline on the fire with ridiculous monetary policy doesn't help. 

I own assets, so this works great for me. But it's funny to see people cry about wealth inequality when it's these insane spending programs that drive up asset prices and exacerbate the problem.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

He said 

He's just saying the benefits of modesty and sustainability.  He's not saying you have to partake in it.

Now read the sentence RIGHT BEFORE THAT ONE.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Huh? He was chastising "Americans"

Chastising  Oh, the horror of someone critiquing American behaviors.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Fair enough, and I couldn't care less about prices. But adding gasoline on the fire with ridiculous monetary policy doesn't help. 

I own assets, so this works great for me. But it's funny to see people cry about wealth inequality when it's these insane spending programs that drive up asset prices and exacerbate the problem.

Now read the sentence RIGHT BEFORE THAT ONE.

Yes, he's also saying Americans consume a lot.  That's just a fact.  Nowhere in his post is he saying anyone should be forced to consume less.

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

Chastising  Oh, the horror of someone critiquing American behaviors.

Love it or leave it, commie.

Just now, vikas83 said:

Love it or leave it, commie.

I clearly struck a nerve. Good to know I've still got it!

Just now, VanHammersly said:

Yes, he's also saying Americans consume a lot.  That's just a fact.  Nowhere in his post is he saying anyone should be forced to consume less.

It was implied. 

Moving on to trying to get him to move to Cuba.

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

I clearly struck a nerve. Good to know I've still got it!

Or I'm bored and waiting for the coffee to kick in...

Ha, just a little normal inflation is all. It's our fault for consuming too much, really. Try eating less...

DCotP.

 

 

Here are Greenspan's full thoughts: https://advisorscapital.com/portfolio/alan-greenspans-thoughts-on-inflation/

He certainly noted the national debt as a problem, but it was hardly the focus. Most of the focus was on demand and supply-side inflationary impacts, particularly focusing on supply-side issues that may not correct on the timeline that the Fed would like (and may never return to pre-pandemic levels).

On 10/22/2021 at 1:57 PM, vikas83 said:

Some of the larger guys are. But that's not who swings energy markets. Take oil -- the biggest swing factor there is shale producers in the US. With oil this high they should be expanding production rapidly. But they can't access any capital to do so. They play this boom/bust game over and over as the marginal supplier, but now they can't easily access capital markets despite rampant liquidity looking for yield. 

It's the same with coal guys, particularly the guys out west. They are the swing producers, but they can't ramp back up due to capital constraints. 

Shale guys and Western Coal producers aren't investing in solar and wind.

Ok so if there’s now a market for it, why aren’t there financial institutions popping up that will give them credit?

Basically, how do we un-do this?

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

Ok so if there’s now a market for it, why aren’t there financial institutions popping up that will give them credit?

Basically, how do we un-do this?

the regulatory hurdles for opening a new refinery for example are so great that the economic incentives aren't there.

the policy goal is to use regulation to incentivize green energy. which is where we need to be long term, but the reality is that we need more refineries right now. but capital isn't going that way, because it's too risky. 

Quote

Opinion: Don’t rant about short-staffed stores and supply chain woes

Opinion by Micheline Maynard

Contributing columnist

October 18, 2021 at 2:16 p.m. EDT

For more than a century, business experts have been trying to dial up the United States’ efficiency. Ever since Frederick Taylor published "The Principles of Scientific Management” in 1911, companies have focused on doing things more quickly, and raising consumers’ expectations as a result.

But Taylor’s ideas didn’t take into account the havoc a pandemic might do to supply chains — and how that would blunt what a few months ago seemed like a looming resumption of modern daily life’s zippy pace.

Across the country, Americans’ expectations of speedy service and easy access to consumer products have been crushed like a Styrofoam container in a trash compactor. Time for some new, more realistic expectations.

Fast food is less fast. A huge flotilla of container ships is stuck offshore in California, waiting to unload. Shelves normally stocked with Halloween candy this time of year are empty, as I saw the other day at a Target here in Ann Arbor, Mich.

The issue has become so troublesome — with alarming economic and political ramifications — that the White House is stepping in, urging unions, port operators and big consumer-goods companies to work around the clock (if they aren’t already) to unclog supply pipelines.

American consumers, their expectations pampered and catered to for decades, are not accustomed to inconvenience.

"For generations, American shoppers have been trained to be nightmares,” Amanda Mull wrote in August in the Atlantic, before the supply chain problem turned truly ugly. "The pandemic has shown just how desperately the consumer class clings to the feeling of being served.”

Customers’ persistent whine, "Why don’t they just hire more people?,” sounds feeble in this era of the Great Resignation, especially in industries, such as food service, with reputations for being tough places to work.

The other day I found myself carrying home a loaf of bread in my bare hands because the bakery had run out of bags. Back when we didn’t know how good we had it — circa 2019 — I might have been annoyed by the inconvenience. Now I was just glad the bakery was still in business.

Other Ann Arbor merchants have given me a glimpse of what it’s like on their side of the supply chain misery. Leyla Conlan, owner of the stationery shop The Write Touch by Leyla, says she recently returned from a gift trade show, where vendors were happy to take her orders but warned that they couldn’t promise the same delivery time as they had in the past. The reasons included factory slowdowns, shortages of packing materials and fewer truck drivers.

Steve Mangigian, managing partner at Zingerman’s coffee and candy companies, tells me he used to order paper cups and lids for his baristas about six to eight weeks in advance. Now, the wait is 16 to 18 weeks — possibly longer. "If I can’t get cups to sell my product, what am I supposed to do? The supply chain could literally shut down my business.”

I know Mangigian because I’ve been writing a book about Zingerman’s. It’s scheduled to be published in February. Everything seems on track, but the publishing industry hasn’t been immune to the supply chain snarls. Paper shortages, worker shortages and the traffic jams at shipping ports are endangering holiday books sales, according to CNN.

All I can do is hope for the best. Like everybody else. And keep those expectations reasonable. Eventually the supply chain will get straightened out.

American consumers might have been spoiled, but generations of them have also dealt with shortages of some kind — gasoline in the 1970s, food rationing in the 1940s, housing in the 1920s when cities such as Detroit were booming. Now it’s our turn to make adjustments.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/18/dont-rant-about-short-staffed-stores-supply-chain-woes-try-lower-expectations/

 

 

13 minutes ago, Bill said:

Ok so if there’s now a market for it, why aren’t there financial institutions popping up that will give them credit?

Basically, how do we un-do this?

Sadly, it's not that simple. Direct lenders (BDCs, lending funds, etc.) raise their capital from institutional investors like pension funds. All those funds now have ESG mandates. Banks that get money from depositors are also all in on ESG (e.g., Bank of America, JPMorgan, etc.). So all that's left are lenders who don't need capital from others -- basically, family offices who charge mid teens plus interest. 

Starting a new bank to take deposits and lend to these companies is damn near impossible. First, competing with the big guys isn't possible on the scale of loans that need to be made ($100 million plus). Second, depositors demand ESG compliance now too. 

The final thing is almost every lender is looking to simply make yield, not own the assets. So you make a loan to one of these companies, you have to wonder how you'll get refinanced out when the ESG train keeps moving in one direction. 

EDIT: Said another way, the true goal of financial institutions is to maximize assets under management, not returns. To maximize AUM, you have to be ESG.