Morning Report – Inflation is running a little hotter than expected.5/22/15

Markets are lower after some hotter-than-expected inflation data. Bonds and MBS are down.

Bonds will close early today, at 2:00 pm EST. Stocks are open a full day.

The Consumer Price Index increased .1% in April, bang in line with expectations. Prices ex-food and energy rose .3% vs. the .2% forecast. On an annual basis, the CPI ex food and energy is up 1.8%.

Real Average Weekly Earnings rose 2.3% on an annualized basis in April.

Janet Yellen will be speaking at 1:00 pm EST. I can’t imagine she will say anything market moving an hour before the close on a 3-day weekend, but just be aware. Markets will become illiquid as the entire street will be on the L.I.E. by noon.

Short missive today, as there really isn’t much to talk about. Have a good Memorial Day Weekend.

34 Responses

    • nova:

      is almost as if this isn’t about discrimination at all.

      Coming soon to a progressive state near you. There are none so intolerant as those who make demands in the name of tolerance.

      Like

  1. That which is not forbidden is mandatory.

    Why do hate gay people, bigot?

    Like

  2. i find everyone equally worthless.

    Like

  3. the tolerant left in action

    Like

    • I love this from one of the lesbians:

      “I have no issues with them believing in what they believe in. I think everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. But I don’t think they should put their personal beliefs inside their business.”

      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, as long as I don’t know what it is.

      How about this: I have no issues with them being lesbians. I think everyone is entitled to their own sexuality. But I don’t think they should display their personal sexuality in public.

      How do you suppose they would react to that?

      Like

  4. Yello’s robotic burger flipper is here…

    http://momentummachines.com/

    Like

  5. It would depend on if they were hot looking lesbians.

    Like

  6. Brent, every time I see the headline to this post I think of Van Halen’s Panama.

    Like

  7. Remember when we were told by “experts” that Americans consume too much healthcare?

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_SKIMPY_INSURANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-23-08-33-10

    Now they want to fix their, er, fix to that perceived problem.

    We’re so much better off with The Abomination.

    Like

    • I like this part:

      A wide body of research shows that out-of-pocket costs discourage people from getting medical care…

      Such insightful research. Who would have guessed that the more you have to pay for something, the less of it you will buy? A good indication of the quality of thinking going into this issue on the left.

      Like

  8. “A good indication of the quality of thinking going into this issue on the left.”

    I find it absolutely fascinating that the left is completely down with the idea of using taxes to raise the price of gasoline and cigarettes in order to discourage consumption, but somehow believe the laws of supply and demand are suspended in the labor market and the health care market.

    Like

  9. It’s not that they believe it it suspended, they wish to use the forces of government to suspend them.

    Like

    • McWing:

      It’s not that they believe it it suspended, they wish to use the forces of government to suspend them.

      In the liberal mind the magical powers of government can probably turn water into wine, too.

      Like

    • Anyone have any idea what the Dormant Commerce Clause is?

      Like

      • Dormant Commerce Clause

        I do.

        Like

        • Remember the guy who made a steamboat, Fulton? NYS gave him a monopoly for steamboat commerce on NY rivers.

          Eventually, and this was a history of stuff over 10 years or more, competitors got a case to the Supremes. Marshall ruled that Congress had the power to control navigable waterways, which necessarily affected commerce among the states. Didn’t matter if Congress hadn’t made a law, leaving the Commerce power dormant didn’t cede it to the states or anyone else.

          But Congress can affirmatively cede a power by law. The Port Authority of NY and NJ for example is OK because Congress allowed it affirmatively.

          Like

        • Mark:

          Didn’t matter if Congress hadn’t made a law, leaving the Commerce power dormant didn’t cede it to the states or anyone else.

          So, if I understand it correctly, in the absence of a congressional law explicitly allowing a state to effect interstate commerce, the Supreme Court assumes that any such state action is disallowed, even if congress itself hasn’t disallowed it. Is that right?

          Like

        • Pretty much yes, Scott. There are some notable exceptions. Two that come to mind:

          the repeal of Prohibition is an Amendment that gives states the rights to control alcoholic beverages, including commerce in it.

          The Annexation of Texas gives Texas far more rights in its coast and offshore than other states have.

          There are probably others, but those two have been to the Supremes repeatedly.

          Dormant power is what keeps states from winning cases where their laws negatively affect other states’ commerce. Comes up in the non-resident tax cases.

          Like

        • Mark:

          Mark:

          Dormant power is what keeps states from winning cases where their laws negatively affect other states’ commerce. Comes up in the non-resident tax cases.

          I see two fundamental problems with this. First, the constitution gives congress, not SCOTUS, the power to regulate interstate commerce. So if congress wants to prohibit a state from impeding on interstate commerce in an objectionable way, it is capable of doing so by passing a law. SCOTUS has no business assuming that congressional silence means it is necessarily objectionable.

          Second, even if one reads the constitution to be prohibiting a state from having any regulating capacity with regard to interstate commerce, it plainly does not prohibit states from affecting interstate commerce. To take the current Maryland issue as an example, while a tax applied only to income made by non-residents may reasonably be seen as an attempt to regulate interstate commerce, a tax which is applied uniformly to all income regardless of residence status, while perhaps affecting interstate commerce, couldn’t reasonably be said to be an attempt to regulate interstate commerce.

          I think the Supremes are overstepping again.

          Like

        • Of course, if a state law affects commerce among the states and nobody with a justiciable interest sues it never gets to the Supremes.

          Like

        • Mark:

          Of course, if a state law affects commerce among the states and nobody with a justiciable interest sues it never gets to the Supremes.

          Of course. There’s no denying that the power of the Supreme Court to impose its reading of the Constitution, whether right or wrong, is limited by the cases that are brought to it.

          Like

        • This could prove to be an interesting series. Reminds me of qb’s repeated point that people on the left generally don’t really understand the right’s positions/arguments.

          http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418831/defend-position-you-must-understand-both-sides-dennis-prager

          Most Americans hold either liberal or conservative positions on most matters. In many instances, however, they would be hard pressed to explain their position or the position they oppose. But if you can’t explain both sides, how do you know you’re right? At the very least, you need to understand both the liberal and conservative positions in order to effectively understand your own.

          I grew up in a liberal world — New York, Jewish, and Ivy League graduate school. I was an eight-year-old when President Dwight Eisenhower ran for reelection against the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson. I knew nothing about politics and had little interest in the subject. But I well recall knowing — knowing, not merely believing — that Democrats were “for the little guy” and Republicans were “for the rich guys.” I voted Democrat through Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976. He was the last Democrat for whom I voted. Obviously, I underwent an intellectual change. And it wasn’t easy. Becoming a Republican was emotionally and psychologically like converting to another religion. In fact, when I first voted Republican I felt as if I had abandoned the Jewish people. To be a Jew meant being a Democrat. It was that simple. It was — and remains — that fundamental to many American Jews’ identity. Therefore, it took a lot of thought to undergo this conversion. I had to understand both liberalism and conservatism. Indeed, I have spent a lifetime in a quest to do so. The fruit of that quest will appear in a series of columns explaining the differences between Left and Right. I hope it will benefit conservatives in better understanding why they are conservative, and enable liberals to understand why someone who deeply cares about the “little guy” holds conservative — or what today are labeled as conservative — views.

          Like

  10. They believe every problem can be solved and the particularly difficult ones need a Manhatten Project style effort. It’s only the evil Rethuglicans that stop them.

    Like

  11. Regarding my link above, I now think it’s bluffing and aging to the Greek electorate. The Greek government will capitulate just like last time and will lose at the polls to (I think) Golden Dawn) who may or may not capitulate.

    Now,

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/05/more-autistic-people-or-more-diagnoses.html?source=socialflow&via=twitter_page&account=thedailybeast&medium=twitter

    I’ve been saying it for years.

    Like

  12. The Greeks act like an anchor on the Euro. Germany doth protest too much..

    Like

  13. Yello’s robotic burger flipper is here…

    Conspicuous for its lack of a photo of said burger flipping machine. Automation always improves productivity and increases wealth. But for whom?

    An advocate for guaranteed basic income phrases the question this way:

    “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Build a robot to fish, do all men starve, or do all men eat?”

    There is a very interesting graph on that article which purports that the poor face effective tax rates of up to 95%. Not sure what his source is but it does feed several narratives.

    Like

    • yello:

      Automation always improves productivity and increases wealth. But for whom?

      Anyone who consumes that which is produced.

      “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. Build a robot to fish, do all men starve, or do all men eat?”

      Um….what’s a robot going to do with all the fish it catches?

      Like

  14. Buggy whip workers were right, forward lies the devil!

    Luckily the government can fix it, amIright?

    Like

    • From yello’s link:

      I’m actually crowdfunding my own basic income and I’m about 30% of the way there right now.

      Heh. That’s an amusing euphemism. I see people on the streets of New York “crowdfunding” their own basic income all the time.

      Like

  15. Heh. That’s an amusing euphemism. I see people on the streets of New York “crowdfunding” their own basic income all the time.

    And they do so without government licensing? How can that be possible?

    What’s the income tax rate for “Crowdfunding’+

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: