The era of JIT (just in time) is pretty much done for now even though there is Amazon. I'm talking about the manufacturing supply chain for raw materials.
....
Inventory costs will be just as expensive in the future as they have been in the past. JIT is not going anywhere. In a similar fashion, large, dense cities are not going anywhere.
Current supply chain issues are real and have been exacerbated by ultra-stimulative monetary policy. As the Federal Reserve is signalling an end to bond purchases sometime in mid-2022, this situation will continue for a while. The Federal Reserve should have started 'tapering' in the first half of 2021.
This pedal to the floor fiscal and monetary policy stances will help drive gasoline and diesel prices to what many might consider 'painful' levels. I wonder if this will politically hurt Biden and the Democrats.
Good easy to digest piece on the supply chain issue. It's mostly about the shift in demand from services to goods, and the lack of truckers. (not biden, or heaven forbid, trump). I like the comment about maybe it's not so bad for us to learn that you can't always (immediately) get what you want.
A very good piece. It just hints about how deep the trucking issues are though. Besides the driver shortage, there are also new / replacement truck shortages as well. Also, the railroads are nearly maxed out as well. Besides the lack of box cars and people to load and unload them. The rails themselves are congested. Especially in the center of the country with tank cars taking crude and other chemicals from Canada, the Dakota's and nearby regions down to the refineries in Texas and Louisiana. And all those empty tank cars going north to get reloaded ... something like a pipeline would be nice to have instead. And safer, too.
But the truck driver shortage is the most daunting problem and there has been a major shortage for at least 10 years that I know of. It is hardly a new one.
And if you listened to Biden today with his magical pronouncements of getting things going 27 / 7, other than the ports, things have been moving 27 / 7 for the past several decades. He's just going to start things that have long been underway already. Long distance and dedicated trucks run all night long, because of the lighter non commercial traffic and also to be waiting at a dock in the morning to be unloaded and resorted at a local warehouse for the next leg of their final journey to the shelves. We have all heard about the gasoline tanker driver shortage, right ? Well besides the random drug testing involved which I have mentioned, these drivers and others who haul haz mats, they also have to pass an FBI background check. I doubt many know about that part and I have never brought it up before. I used to have tanker and haz mat endorsements on my CDL but let them lapse when this requirement came out about 10 or 15 years ago. Not because of any problems, but why bother since it was unlikely that I would be ever driving any of that stuff ever again. So why go through the hassle ?
And regarding efficiency, UPS did a major routing study over 10 to 20 years ago designed to keep their delivery trucks always rolling and not stuck at red lights and traffic bottlenecks by eliminating as many left hand turns on routes as possible. KISS.
The era of JIT (just in time) is pretty much done for now even though there is Amazon. I'm talking about the manufacturing supply chain for raw materials.
And one more thing ... I recently heard that China has a huge energy shortage problem with electrical energy generation. Factories are being shut down for a day or two a week on a rotating basis because of this. This is a direct result of a global coal shortage and China's extreme investment in coal fired generating plants. Something the USA is said to have a 600 year supply of last number I heard. Not to mention a whole sh*t load of clean burning natural gas, which the price of has doubled since Biden took office. Winter is going to be real expensive trying to stay warm this year.
For libertarians, the market would rule it all, up to a point, where whole nations are bordered on starvation, 'cause the bread or rice prices go up so high, they have nothing to eat anymore. - Phew..
Some self-styled libertarians are like that. Most are not. Most embrace rules-based markets. Most understand that imposing negative externalities on others is not cool.
Good easy to digest piece on the supply chain issue. It's mostly about the shift in demand from services to goods, and the lack of truckers. (not biden, or heaven forbid, trump). I like the comment about maybe it's not so bad for us to learn that you can't always (immediately) get what you want.
The democratic socialists in northern Europe seem to understand freemarket economics better than most. The socio-economic outcomes are outstanding.
If so-called conservatives (Canada, USA and many, many other countries) actually understood freemarket economics, they would not support half the policies they do.
For cathartic purposes, I sometimes like to imagine North American conservatives as having large posters of Salvador Allende, Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro and Robert Mugabe up on the wall. That thought came to me many times while contemplating the economic policies of former president Donald J. Trump.
The bigger problem in the USA in particular, is that the term 'economics' means different things to different people. To some it means broad, collective, social economic outcomes. To others, it means favouring special interest outcomes or just simply outcomes for me, myself and I. Possessive individualism and the 'freedom' call often translate into the 'economics of narcissism'.
Bidenâs agenda further severs the connection between government benefits and the obligation to pay for them
By Greg Ip Updated Sept. 29, 2021 2:15 pm ET, Wall Street Journal, gated.
Pasted bit:
Led by President Biden, Democrats seek to emulate the comprehensive welfare states common in Western Europe, without the high taxes Europeans routinely pay. Under the Democratsâ proposal, 90% of American households would either pay less or the same taxes, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Tax Policy Center. The richest 1% would pay all of the net new taxes levied next year.
They found a way. Maybe they ate less avocado toast, or ordered fewer lattes? Regardless, isn't this what you've wanted them to do?
That 3.5T that you are so worried about actually has provisions for raising taxes to offset some of the cost, and it's a 10 year cost. Our healthcare system costs more than any other developed country and provides worse outcomes. How can we think that's okay? Let's spend a little to fix that and maybe cut back on some other areas where we shovel money with no tax offsets (like the defense budget).
We havenât balanced the budget in over 20 years, and probably wont for at least the next 30 years.
Not picking sides here, but⦠Obamacare was supposed to be revenue neutral â itâs not Trumps cuts were supposed to be revenue neutral â again, not. Even if the tax increases find a way to cover itâ¦itâs still a cost being borne by society, and of course there is always the âexpected growth offsetâ that never materializes.
And then the spending itselfâ¦this is pretty big shotgun going off, and how much will miss its target? Does anyone even understand what is in the bill, or do we need to pass it first, then figure it out?
Again, Iâm not against the gov investing in the country, Iâm just not convinced we have the right money managers to get us any type of returnâ¦.especially after we just threw away trillions. And of course, redistribute some of the oreos to those areas that actual do good for society.
Yes, much of the last 18 months of stimulus was thrown awayâ¦it didnât go to just those in need, but was essentially cash thrown out the window. In fact, too many of those with hardships are still struggling.
Yes, Iâm for savings, but borrowing $ to redistribute to society, whether they needed it or not, isnât my idea of savings.
I am for universal healthcare, but not Obamacare, a plan jammed through because timing was expedient. Of course, even what might have helped reduce costs under Obamacare was killed by the GOP (individual mandates).
The key takeaway was consumers only spent 25% of stimulus...stimulus which i thought was needed because of hardship/ joblessness (we're not including unemployment). And where is most of this spending going? Mostly trinkets from asia, sitting backed up in our ports. I'm all for rifled approaches to spending, and investing in the country...but I don't see much of that occurring, so I've got a lot of reflux from the current effort to spend another $3.5T of my kids $. As for healthcare, most of these costs aren't optional, although large bits are, like insurance profit, PBMs and all the other unnecessary middle men in the healthcare supply chain, and on the other end, preventive care. Getting rid of the former, and adding the latter are big incentives for universal care (not to mention the statistical benefit of getting everyone covered, and in the "pool.")
They found a way. Maybe they ate less avocado toast, or ordered fewer lattes? Regardless, isn't this what you've wanted them to do?
That 3.5T that you are so worried about actually has provisions for raising taxes to offset some of the cost, and it's a 10 year cost. Our healthcare system costs more than any other developed country and provides worse outcomes. How can we think that's okay? Let's spend a little to fix that and maybe cut back on some other areas where we shovel money with no tax offsets (like the defense budget).
Mostly good - I think people need more savings. That people have figured out how to survive while not spending 99.9% of the money they have on hand is a good thing. I also think we need to spend more on infrastructure, and healthcare in this country needs significant help too. I doubt it will be much more than continued insurance reform, but it's something. I do hear rumblings of rolling back some tax breaks to pay for it, so also good as long as they do it in a way that supports people being able to continue to save some percentage of their $s.
The key takeaway was consumers only spent 25% of stimulus...stimulus which i thought was needed because of hardship/ joblessness (we're not including unemployment). And where is most of this spending going? Mostly trinkets from asia, sitting backed up in our ports. I'm all for rifled approaches to spending, and investing in the country...but I don't see much of that occurring, so I've got a lot of reflux from the current effort to spend another $3.5T of my kids $. As for healthcare, most of these costs aren't optional, although large bits are, like insurance profit, PBMs and all the other unnecessary middle men in the healthcare supply chain, and on the other end, preventive care. Getting rid of the former, and adding the latter are big incentives for universal care (not to mention the statistical benefit of getting everyone covered, and in the "pool.")
"Interesting" comments on the state of our economy. I wonder what it means.
The federal government also could deliver another round of spending that could nudge up growth, economists say. That includes a $1 trillion infrastructure bill and a separate $3.5 trillion budget bill that would expand access to healthcare, offer universal prekindergarten and reduce carbon emissions, among other measures.
Some economists say households are still flush with cash and harbor a lot of pent-up demand for services. Households have only spent about 25% of this yearâs stimulus payments, according to an analysis of Household Pulse Survey data by Jefferies LLC.
Mostly good - I think people need more savings. That people have figured out how to survive while not spending 99.9% of the money they have on hand is a good thing. I also think we need to spend more on infrastructure, and healthcare in this country needs significant help too. I doubt it will be much more than continued insurance reform, but it's something. I do hear rumblings of rolling back some tax breaks to pay for it, so also good as long as they do it in a way that supports people being able to continue to save some percentage of their $s.
"Interesting" comments on the state of our economy. I wonder what it means.
The federal government also could deliver another round of spending that could nudge up growth, economists say. That includes a $1 trillion infrastructure bill and a separate $3.5 trillion budget bill that would expand access to healthcare, offer universal prekindergarten and reduce carbon emissions, among other measures.
Some economists say households are still flush with cash and harbor a lot of pent-up demand for services. Households have only spent about 25% of this yearâs stimulus payments, according to an analysis of Household Pulse Survey data by Jefferies LLC.
Location: On the edge of tomorrow looking back at yesterday. Gender:
Posted:
Apr 7, 2021 - 11:53am
black321 wrote:
GeneP59 wrote:
Just a perspective since I don’t want to read that much.
We are witnessing the fall of Rome all over since we do not learn from the past.
And for perspective it’s a 5:1 population ratio in Communist China’s favor.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
Yes. Questions are: Will the Chinese people remain satisfied with an authoritarian regime and individual freedoms repressed, for the sake of economic stability? And how far will Western cultures go to increase authoritarian measures, in attempts to address inequalities?
With the way the Chinese government crushes their people i.e. Hong Kong, Taiwan and the unwillingness for the West to step in and intervene and not rock the status quo it might end up in an armed conflict. That is what I’m concerned with. You can see the way that they are posturing in the Sea of Japan with naval movements and disregard for other nations sovereignty. They’re flexing their muscles more and more worldwide and trying to insert their influence everywhere.
On a podcast I listen to this morning there are more billionaires being created in China than anywhere else in the world as of last year. They might have the influence to change the Chinese population away from communism and towards a capitalistic society because they’re dependent on continuing their freedom to do what they want to.
I’m glad I don’t have to solve the worlds problems.
Just a perspective since I donât want to read that much.
We are witnessing the fall of Rome all over since we do not learn from the past.
And for perspective itâs a 5:1 population ratio in Communist Chinaâs favor.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
Yes. Questions are: Will the Chinese people remain satisfied with an authoritarian regime and individual freedoms repressed, for the sake of economic stability? And how far will Western cultures go to increase authoritarian measures, in attempts to address inequalities?
