Gas prices, banking risk management, and new FDA regs:
Gas prices are up, as high as $3.54 in Chicago (though the national average is a bit lower, at 2.86). Gas prices nationwide have jumped 10 cents in the last month, and analysts believe prices will rise, some seeing the possibility of $4 gas as soon as July. Of course, prices would go down if we quit taxing gas at such a high rate, or if we’d quit stopping our nation from using its own oil reserves. And not ridiculously expanding the monetary base and over-subsidizing roadways and cars would also be a great step in the right direction.
Though this should be no surprise to anyone who understands how central banking works, it’s been revealed that major banks in the US artificially lowered the visible risk of their investments repeatedly in the last five quarters. And this after they received bail-outs for their risky investments in the past. Why do banks behave this way? Is it because they’re greedy businessmen? Yes and no. All businessmen are in the business of increasing their profits, and so in this respect they could all be called “greedy.” But most of the time a business will be rather cautious, not doing a whole bunch of risky things. The reason bankers are so willing to take risks with your money is that they know the Federal Government is there to bail them out if they fail–with your tax dollars. The the banks are simply doing what any savvy business people would do in their situation: taking massive risks because Uncle Sam will always be there to give them your money in a pinch. Government, of course, will call to increase its own power by asking for greater power to regulate banks, when what they really ought to be doing is yanking out the safety net so that the banks will be more careful and not waste your money.
The bureaucrat of the day is Kathleen Sebelius of the FDA, who is now pushing for regulation requiring all food producers to book their nutrition information on the front of food packages. Right now they’re often on the back or side of the package, but according to Sebelius, “Busy shoppers will be able to go into grocery stores and have some easy to understand information on the front of packages giving them quick data . . .” That’s right. The FDA is seeking to harness the power of government to force those nasty-looking charts on to the front of every food package, all to help those people who really want to know the statistical details without turning the package around. Of course, it isn’t the inconvenience that’s the principle of the thing, but rather the underlying assumption: that government ought to forever be imposing more and more legislation on us, restricting our choices in everything, all “for our own good.” Regulation by reguliation, we are told that we are too dull to think through things on our own and must have government use force to think things through for us. Rather like the frog in the kettle, no?
Related Posts:
economic news and commentary for today
Gas prices, banking risk management, and new FDA regs:
Gas prices are up, as high as $3.54 in Chicago (though the national average is a bit lower, at 2.86). Gas prices nationwide have jumped 10 cents in the last month, and analysts believe prices will rise, some seeing the possibility of $4 gas as soon as July. Of course, prices would go down if we quit taxing gas at such a high rate, or if we’d quit stopping our nation from using its own oil reserves. And not ridiculously expanding the monetary base and over-subsidizing roadways and cars would also be a great step in the right direction.
Though this should be no surprise to anyone who understands how central banking works, it’s been revealed that major banks in the US artificially lowered the visible risk of their investments repeatedly in the last five quarters. And this after they received bail-outs for their risky investments in the past. Why do banks behave this way? Is it because they’re greedy businessmen? Yes and no. All businessmen are in the business of increasing their profits, and so in this respect they could all be called “greedy.” But most of the time a business will be rather cautious, not doing a whole bunch of risky things. The reason bankers are so willing to take risks with your money is that they know the Federal Government is there to bail them out if they fail–with your tax dollars. The the banks are simply doing what any savvy business people would do in their situation: taking massive risks because Uncle Sam will always be there to give them your money in a pinch. Government, of course, will call to increase its own power by asking for greater power to regulate banks, when what they really ought to be doing is yanking out the safety net so that the banks will be more careful and not waste your money.
The bureaucrat of the day is Kathleen Sebelius of the FDA, who is now pushing for regulation requiring all food producers to book their nutrition information on the front of food packages. Right now they’re often on the back or side of the package, but according to Sebelius, “Busy shoppers will be able to go into grocery stores and have some easy to understand information on the front of packages giving them quick data . . .” That’s right. The FDA is seeking to harness the power of government to force those nasty-looking charts on to the front of every food package, all to help those people who really want to know the statistical details without turning the package around. Of course, it isn’t the inconvenience that’s the principle of the thing, but rather the underlying assumption: that government ought to forever be imposing more and more legislation on us, restricting our choices in everything, all “for our own good.” Regulation by reguliation, we are told that we are too dull to think through things on our own and must have government use force to think things through for us. Rather like the frog in the kettle, no?
Related Posts: