Authored by Frank Shostak via The Mises Institute,

For most commentators, a “stable price level” is the key for economic stability. For instance, let us say that there is a relative increase in consumer demand for potatoes versus tomatoes. This relative increase is depicted, all things being equal, by the relative increase in the price of potatoes. To be successful, businesses must pay attention to consumer demand. Failing to do so is likely to lead to losses. Hence, by paying attention to relative changes in prices, producers are likely to increase the production of potatoes versus tomatoes.

According to many economists, if the “price level” is not “stable,” then the visibility of the relative price changes becomes blurred and, consequently, businesses cannot ascertain the relative changes in the demand for goods and services and make correct production decisions.

This leads to a misallocation of resources and to the weakening of economic fundamentals. Thinking this way, unstable changes in the price level obscure a business person’s ability to ascertain changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Thus, businesses find it difficult to recognize a change in relative prices when the price level is unstable.

Given such presuppositions, it is not surprising that the mandate of the central bank is to pursue policies that will allegedly bring “price stability” (i.e., a stable price level). By means of various quantitative methods, the Fed’s economists have established that policymakers should aim at keeping the yearly growth rate of prices of goods and services at two percent. Any significant deviation from this figure supposedly constitutes deviation from stable growth.

The Assumption of Money Neutrality & “Price Stability”

At the root of price stabilization policies is a view that money is neutral, that is, changes in the money supply only have an effect on the price level while having no effect on the relative prices. For instance, if one apple exchanges for two potatoes then the price of an apple is two potatoes or the price of one potato is half an apple. Now, if one apple exchanges for one dollar, then the price of a potato is $0.50. Note that the introduction of money does not alter the fact that the relative price of potatoes versus apples is 2:1 (two-to-one). Thus, a seller of an apple will get one dollar for it, which, in turn, will enable him to purchase two potatoes.

Let us assume that the stock of money has doubled and, as a result, the purchasing power of money has halved, or the price level has doubled. This means that now one apple can be exchanged for two dollars while one potato for one dollar. Despite the doubling in prices, a seller of an apple with the obtained two dollars can still purchase two potatoes. Assuming money neutrality, an increase in the quantity of money leads to a proportionate increase in prices. Conversely, a fall in the quantity of money results in a proportionate decline in the prices. Why is this way of thinking problematic?

Money is Not Neutral

When new money is injected, there are always first recipients of the newly-injected money who benefit from this injection. The first recipients, with more money at their disposal, can now acquire a greater amount of goods while the prices of these goods are still unchanged. As money starts to move through the economy, the prices of goods begin to rise, unevenly and disproportionately. Consequently, late receivers of the inflated money realize costs from the monetary injections and may even find that most prices have risen so much that they can now afford fewer goods.

Artificial increases in money supply generate a redistribution of wealth from later recipients, or non-recipients of money, to the earlier recipients. Obviously, this shift in wealth alters individuals’ demands for goods and services and, in turn, further alters the relative prices of goods and services. Inflationary increases in money supply set in motion new dynamics that give rise to changes in demands for goods and services and to changes in their relative prices. Hence, increases in money supply cannot be neutral.

Again, a change in relative demands here is on account of wealth diversion from the latest recipients of money to the earlier recipients. This change in relative demands cannot be sustained without ongoing increases in the money supply. Once the growth rate of the money supply slows down or ceases altogether, various activities that emerged on the back of this inflationary increase in the money supply come under pressure. It follows, then, that an artificial increase in the money supply gives rise to changes in relative prices, which sets in motion an unsustainable structure of production.

Hence, the Fed’s monetary policy—which aims at stabilizing the price level—necessarily involves growth in the money supply. Since inflationary changes in the money supply are not neutral, this means that the central bank policy amounts to tampering with relative prices, which leads to the disruption of the efficient allocation of resources.

While increases in money supply are likely to be revealed in general price increases, this is not always the case. Prices are determined by real and monetary factors. Consequently, it can occur if the real factors are pulling things in an opposite direction to monetary factors. In such a case, a visible change in prices may not take place. While money growth is buoyant, prices might display moderate increases. If we were to pay attention to changes in the price level and disregard increases in the money supply, we would reach misleading conclusions regarding the state of the economy. On this, Rothbard wrote,

The fact that general prices were more or less stable during the 1920s told most economists that there was no inflationary threat, and therefore the events of the great depression caught them completely unaware.

There is No “Price Level”

The whole idea of the general purchasing power of money and, therefore, the “price level” cannot even be established conceptually. When one dollar is exchanged for the one loaf of bread, we can say that the purchasing power of the one dollar is the one loaf of bread. If one dollar is exchanged for two tomatoes, then this also means that the purchasing power of the one dollar is two tomatoes. Such information regarding the specific purchasing power of money at that moment in time does not, however, allow the establishment of the general, total purchasing power of money. It is not possible to ascertain the total purchasing power of money because we cannot meaningfully add up two tomatoes to the one loaf of bread. We can only establish the purchasing power of money with respect to a particular good in a transaction at a given point in time and at a given place. According to Rothbard,

Since the general exchange-value, or PPM (purchasing power of money), of money cannot be quantitatively defined and isolated in any historical situation, and its changes cannot be defined or measured, it is obvious that it cannot be kept stable. If we do not know what something is, we cannot very well act to keep it constant.

Conclusion

For most commentators, the key to healthy economic fundamentals is “price stability.” A “stable price level,” it is held, leads to the efficient use of the economy’s scarce resources and hence results in better economic fundamentals. It is not surprising that the mandate of the Federal Reserve is to pursue policies that will supposedly generate price stability. Through monetary policies (inflation) that aim at stabilizing the price level, the Fed actually undermines economic fundamentals. An ever-growing interference of the central bank with the working of markets moves the US economy towards the growth path of persistent economic impoverishment and drastically lower living standards.

On the contrary, what is required is not a policy of dubious “price stability,” but rather allowing free price fluctuations and maintaining sound money. Only in an environment free of central bank tampering can free and voluntary fluctuations in relative prices can take place. This, in turn, permits businesses to abide by consumer instructions.

Research from Doxo has revealed the most expensive – and most affordable U.S. cities to live in – for 2024.

The 60-page report analyzes average household spending across 10 key bill categories, including rent, mortgage, utilities, and insurance, revealing an average annual cost of $25,513 per U.S. household.

It ranks the 50 largest U.S. cities by expense, detailing monthly bill totals, the Cost of Bills Index (COBI), income percentages, and comparisons to the national average, with highlights on the 10 most and least expensive cities.

The 10 most expensive cities for household bills are dominated by hubs like San Jose, New York, and Boston, where monthly expenses exceed $3,400 and the Cost of Bills Index (COBI) rises well above the national average, according to Doxo and DoxoInsights. 

For instance, San Jose households face an average monthly bill of $3,695, 74% higher than the national average. These cities also require substantial portions of household income, with New York bills consuming 38% and Boston reaching 41%, indicating financial strain on residents.

In contrast, the least expensive cities, such as Indianapolis, Louisville, and Memphis, see average monthly household bill expenses well below $2,000, with COBI values significantly under 100. Detroit, the most affordable among them, has an average bill expense of $1,640—23% below the national average—despite its bills taking up 53% of household income, reflecting lower income levels.

Other cities like Cleveland and El Paso similarly exhibit lower costs but still demand a notable share of household income.

Interestingly, income levels and regional economic factors play a pivotal role in these rankings. Expensive cities, often located in tech and business hubs like California and the Northeast, pair high costs with higher average incomes.

The Doxo report shows that more affordable cities, primarily in the Midwest and South, may have lower living costs but also lower median wages, complicating their affordability.

This comparison underscores the varying economic landscapes of urban centers across the U.S. While residents in more expensive cities face larger bills, their higher incomes may offset the impact, whereas in less expensive cities, lower incomes mean even reduced bills can constitute a significant financial burden.

It’ll be interesting to see how this data shifts with the new incoming administration…

You can read the full 60 page spend report PDF here. 

Authored by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics,

If for no other reason than that it will elicit fear in the hearts of autocracy-phobics, I propose that Donald Trump’s second-term Cabinet be known as “The Wild Bunch.”

The name is best known as the title of Sam Peckinpah’s classic 1969 western featuring a colorful cast of aging outlaws – William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, Edmond O’Brien, Warren Oates, and Ben Johnson – who give it their all as they battle bounty hunters, the Mexican Federal Army, and the passage of time in order to make their mark while they still have a chance.

Substitute the legacy media and special interests for the bounty hunters and Mexican army, and that about sums up the desperate last-chance mission of the ragtag band Trump has put together to carry out his mandate of meaningful change in a government grown fat and corrupt for the past half-century.

We don’t need to belabor the point. Trump’s appointees aren’t outlaws, but they certainly have the federales worried – the so-called administrative state, the people who have been wearing badges and making the rules. Because this Wild Bunch looks like they mean business. If they get approved, they will be kicking ass and taking names.

It’s a far cry from Trump’s first Cabinet, which he appointed with the permission of the administrative state. The outsider president didn’t know enough yet – or have enough power – to buck the system. He went with consensus choices who, at best, might talk about change but would be hesitant to effect it. Half of them shot Trump in the back; most of the rest were disloyal to his face, along with the congressional power brokers who put up roadblocks to every meaningful reform.

It’s not hard to think of Trump as Pike Bishop, the William Holden character in “The Wild Bunch” who leads what’s left of his gang out of a disastrous gunfight at the beginning of the movie and then plans his next move. At one point, Pike tells his trusted lieutenant, “This is our last go-around, Dutch. This time, we do it right.”

That’s where Trump is now, at age 78, sensing the insufficiency of his first term and wanting to make a real difference the second time around. This time, we do it right.

The  president-elect has wasted no time in assembling his team of rabble-rousers. You can break the mayhem down into four discrete buckets – justice, health, national security, and economic overhaul – and it looks like, if he gets his way, Trump’s second term could be historic. Throw in the government reinvention project spearheaded by rogue entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy and you are well on your way to the second American revolution. No wonder the political establishment will stop at nothing to crush Trump and his appointees before they can begin the reforms they promised.

The old guard may have celebrated when they took down the proposed appointment of Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general, but they won nothing. Trump’s replacement nominee, former Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, will work just as hard as Gaetz to shake up the Department of Justice. As one of Trump’s attorneys in his first impeachment trial, she has intimate knowledge of how the Deep State can aim the full force of the federal bureaucracy on an individual to destroy him or her.

It’s no accident that the Trump transition team has declined FBI background checks on his nominees and appointees. Remember, this is the same FBI that entrapped Trump’s national security adviser Michael Flynn in the early days of his first administration. Not to mention the FBI that let President Trump be impeached for questioning Joe Biden’s role in Ukrainian corruption, even though the agency was in possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop that would have vindicated Trump if it had been released.

You can bet that Bondi, assisted by Trump’s criminal lawyer Todd Blanche in the role of deputy attorney general, will remove any Justice Department employees who pursue charges against anyone for political purposes. Those days are over.

But that’s just the beginning, and although the Justice Department overhaul may bring the most significant changes immediately, the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as secretary of Health and Human Services could result in long-term changes of even greater impact.

Anyone who has noticed the prevalence of advertising for wonder drugs on cable news probably can understand the concern that Big Pharma has an outsized impact on the health narrative being told in mainstream media. Multiply that concern by a dozen when you measure the influence that drug companies have not just on Congress and health regulatory agencies but on the medical industry itself. 

Bobby Kennedy has no fear of Big Pharma or the scientific establishment and he is willing to demand accountability for the kinds of policy decisions that led to our disastrous COVID policies four years ago. Is he right about everything? No, but he asks the right questions – questions that until now no one in power has dared to raise.

What about national security? There are problems everywhere, none bigger than China, which has been the missing link in U.S. foreign policy for the past four years. Does President Biden even have a China policy? You would be hard-pressed to find it, unless it is appeasement. No response to the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. No response to the cold war with the Philippines or the creation of Chinese naval bases in the South China Sea. No response to the increasing pressure tactics employed against our crucial trading partner, Taiwan. No response to China cracking down on human rights and free speech in Hong Kong. No response to China’s creation of a spy base in Cuba in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. No response to China’s predatory trade practices using slave labor.

You can expect the silence from the State Department to end when Sen. Marco Rubio is approved by the Senate as the new secretary of state. China is on notice, but other hot spots around the globe will also be addressed by Trump’s national security team, which includes former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence and Rep. Michael Waltz as national security adviser. Trump promised to negotiate a settlement to the frightful war in Ukraine, and by appointing Gen. Keith Kellogg as special envoy to Ukraine and Russia, Trump is signaling that the killing has to end.

National security and the economy overlap in at least two crucial areas – illegal immigration and Trump’s plan to use tariffs as a tool to tame our allies and confound our adversaries. Treasury Secretary-designate Scott Bessent has made it clear that he will work with Trump to use tariffs to reshape the global economy and lessen the national debt.

That will be a key ingredient as Trump’s national security team works to deport the millions of illegals who have developed a dangerous symbiosis with the labor economy. Trump knows we can’t merely overlook the lawbreakers without surrendering our moral superiority, but the trick will be to find economic resources to make whole the industries like agriculture that will need to reinvent themselves with a legal work force.

In the first Trump administration, the response to Trump’s plans for massive change was “Why?” But now the response is “Why not?” As Trump asked black voters in 2016, “What do you have to lose?” Now that question is being posed to the entire nation, which has been sleepwalking toward the abyss for too long. If we don’t solve illegal immigration, the national debt, and the corporate stranglehold on our regulatory agencies and Defense Department, then there won’t be anything left to lose. That’s why nearly 60% of Americans support Trump’s transition, despite the fear-mongering of Rachel Maddow, the New York Times, and Biden’s White House.

In one last parallel between the cinematic “Wild Bunch” and Trump’s political variation, it is worth noting that Trump and his team know exactly what they are getting into. The Deep State isn’t going to take kindly to the president turning off the spigot of easy money for lobbyists, Big Pharma, and the military-industrial complex. But don’t expect Trump to back down.

In a crucial scene in the film, as the outlaws plot their revenge, Ernest Borgnine warns William Holden that “They’ll be waitin’ for us.”

Holden responds: “I wouldn’t have it any other way.” Neither would Trump or any of the 77 million deplorables who joined his gang on Nov. 5.

American businessman and venture capitalist Stephen Jurvetson laid out over a century of Moore’s Law on computational power advancements in a post on X. 

Jurvetson, the founder of Future Ventures who funded Skype, SpaceX, Tesla, Zoox, Boring Company, and other startups, color-coded the transition from mechanical to relay to vacuum tube to transistor and finally to integrated circuits.

He pointed out that “Moore’s Law has transitioned most recently from the GPU (green dots) to the ASIC (yellow and orange dots), and the NVIDIA Hopper architecture itself is a transitionary species—from GPU to ASIC, with 8-bit performance optimized for AI models, the majority of new compute cycles.”

He made forecasts about chip advancements:

• Custom ASIC chips and future analog in-memory compute technologies offer even closer biomimicry of the human brain, further advancing AI capabilities.

• Moore’s Law is expected to persist for at least another 20 years, enabling continued cost reductions in computational power and storage.

Jurvetson emphasized, “I would go further and assert that this is the most important graph ever conceived.”

He added: “Every industry on our planet is going to become an information business.” 

.   .   . 

The Moore’s Law Update

NOTE: this is a semi-log graph, so a straight line is an exponential; each y-axis tick is 100x. This graph covers a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x improvement in computation/$.  Pause to let that sink in.

Humanity’s capacity to compute has compounded for as long as we can measure it, exogenous to the economy, and starting long before Intel co-founder Gordon Moore noticed a refraction of the longer-term trend in the belly of the fledgling semiconductor industry in 1965.

I have color coded it to show the transition among the integrated circuit architectures. You can see how the mantle of Moore’s Law has transitioned most recently from the GPU (green dots) to the ASIC (yellow and orange dots), and the NVIDIA Hopper architecture itself is a transitionary species — from GPU to ASIC, with 8-bit performance optimized for AI models, the majority of new compute cycles.

There are thousands of invisible dots below the line, the frontier of humanity’s capacity to compute (e.g., everything from Intel in the past 15 years).  The computational frontier has shifted across many technology substrates over the past 128 years. Intel ceded leadership to NVIDIA 15 years ago, and further handoffs are inevitable.

Why the transition within the integrated circuit era?   Intel lost to NVIDIA for neural networks because the fine-grained parallel compute architecture of a GPU maps better to the needs of deep learning. There is a poetic beauty to the computational similarity of a processor optimized for graphics processing and the computational needs of a sensory cortex, as commonly seen in the neural networks of 2014.  A custom ASIC chip optimized for neural networks extends that trend to its inevitable future in the digital domain. Further advances are possible with analog in-memory compute, an even closer biomimicry of the human cortex. The best business planning assumption is that Moore’s Law, as depicted here, will continue for the next 20 years as it has for the past 128.  (Note: the top right dot for Mythic is a prediction for 2026 showing the effect of a simple process shrink from an ancient 40nm process node)

—-

For those unfamiliar with this chart, here is a more detailed description: 

Moore’s Law is both a prediction and an abstraction. It is commonly reported as a doubling of transistor density every 18 months. But this is not something the co-founder of Intel, Gordon Moore, has ever said. It is a nice blending of his two predictions; in 1965, he predicted an annual doubling of transistor counts in the most cost effective chip and revised it in 1975 to every 24 months. With a little hand waving, most reports attribute 18 months to Moore’s Law, but there is quite a bit of variability. The popular perception of Moore’s Law is that computer chips are compounding in their complexity at near constant per unit cost. This is one of the many abstractions of Moore’s Law, and it relates to the compounding of transistor density in two dimensions. Others relate to speed (the signals have less distance to travel) and computational power (speed x density).

Unless you work for a chip company and focus on fab-yield optimization, you do not care about transistor counts. Integrated circuit customers do not buy transistors. Consumers of technology purchase computational speed and data storage density. When recast in these terms, Moore’s Law is no longer a transistor-centric metric, and this abstraction allows for longer-term analysis.

What Moore observed in the belly of the early IC industry was a derivative metric, a refracted signal, from a longer-term trend, a trend that begs various philosophical questions and predicts mind-bending AI futures.

In the modern era of accelerating change in the tech industry, it is hard to find even five-year trends with any predictive value, let alone trends that span the centuries.

I would go further and assert that this is the most important graph ever conceived.  A large and growing set of industries depends on continued exponential cost declines in computational power and storage density. Moore’s Law drives electronics, communications and computers and has become a primary driver in drug discovery, biotech and bioinformatics, medical imaging and diagnostics. As Moore’s Law crosses critical thresholds, a formerly lab science of trial and error experimentation becomes a simulation science, and the pace of progress accelerates dramatically, creating opportunities for new entrants in new industries.  Consider the autonomous  software stack for Tesla and SpaceX and the impact that is having on the automotive and aerospace sectors.

Every industry on our planet is going to become an information business. Consider agriculture. If you ask a farmer in 20 years’ time about how they compete, it will depend on how they use information — from satellite imagery driving robotic field optimization to the code in their seeds.  It will have nothing to do with workmanship or labor. That will eventually percolate through every industry as IT innervates the economy.

Non-linear shifts in the marketplace are also essential for entrepreneurship and meaningful change. Technology’s exponential pace of progress has been the primary juggernaut of perpetual market disruption, spawning wave after wave of opportunities for new companies.  Without disruption, entrepreneurs would not exist. 

Moore’s Law is not just exogenous to the economy; it is why we have economic growth and an accelerating pace of progress. At Future Ventures, we see that in the growing diversity and global impact of the entrepreneurial ideas that we see each year — from automobiles and aerospace to energy and chemicals.

We live in interesting times, at the cusp of the frontiers of the unknown and breathtaking advances.  But, it should always feel that way, engendering a perpetual sense of future shock.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The clean Green energy fiasco has reached a new level of incompetence and waste…

Totally Wasted Wind Power

Bloomberg reports UK Is Paying £1 Billion to Waste a Record Amount of Wind Power

Burgeoning capacity and blustery weather should have driven huge growth in output in 2024. But the grid can’t cope, forcing the operator to pay wind farms to turn off, a cost ultimately borne by consumers. It’s a situation that puts at risk plans to decarbonize the network by 2030 and makes it harder to cut bills.

Crucial to the net zero grid target is a massive build-out of renewable power, particularly from wind. Britain has boosted its offshore fleet by 50% in the past five years and is set to double it in the next five, Bloomberg data show.

But the grid hasn’t expanded at the same pace. As a result, the operator is increasingly paying wind farms, particularly those in Scotland, not to run. So far this year, the UK has spent more than £1 billion ($1.3 billion) in “congestion costs” to turn off plants that can’t deliver electricity because of grid constraints, and switch on others.

Last month for example, when Storm Bert swept across the UK, some of its newest and biggest wind parks were still. Scotland’s £3 billion Seagreen project, owned by SSE Plc and TotalEnergies SE, was shut off. SSE’s Viking development on the Shetland Islands was also closed.

Wind vs Gas

UK generators usually sell output in advance on the wholesale market. But those transactions don’t take into account the physical limitations of balancing supply and demand in real time. To keep the lights on, the operator steps in, paying some plants to turn off and others that are closer to demand centers to fire up.

Often, this means shutting off a far-flung wind farm and starting up a gas-fed plant that’s closer to a city.

Absurd Setup

“It’s absurd that Britain pays Scottish wind farms to turn off when it’s windy, while simultaneously paying gas-power stations in the south to turn on,” said Clem Cowton, director of external affairs at supplier Octopus Energy Group.

I don’t believe we need an energy director to diagnose the complete absurdity of this arrangement.

Which of These Headlines Are Real?

1. Southern Wife Arrested for Failing to Serve Drinks in Mason Jars

2. UK Pays Wind Farms $1.3 Billion to Shut Down When It’s Windy

3. FBI Warns Kash Appointment Could Jeopardize Efforts to Not Release Epstein List

4. Trump Renews Relations with Castro Regime

It is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between real and fake headlines.

In the above list, only number 2 is real. The others are from the Babylon Bee.

Wind Losses Are Huge

• General Electric (GE): GE’s offshore wind business expects to lose about $1 billion in 2023 and 2024. This is due to a number of challenges, including:

  • Inflation 

  • High interest rates 

  • Supply chain bottlenecks 

  • Rising costs for components 

• Siemens: Lost nearly $1 billion on wind last year 

• Vestas: Saw an operating profit decline of 369% 

• Increased costs: Commodity prices, including for steel and copper, have increased, as well as construction and operating costs 

• Regulatory process: The regulatory process takes about six years, while other countries are building projects at a faster pace 

• Lawsuits and disinformation: Lawsuits from advocacy groups and disinformation campaigns from astroturfing groups have slowed development 

The above was AI generated.

Offshore Wind Projects

Image is from the US Energy Information Agency, EIA article Cancellations Reduce Expected U.S. Capacity of Offshore Wind Facilities.

The amount of offshore wind generating capacity that is under construction or planned in the United States is in flux after two projects in New Jersey were canceled last year. Of the 7,200 megawatts (MW) of capacity reported in May in EIA’s latest Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory, projects totaling about 2,400 MW have been canceled since last December while others totaling 4,800 MW remain active in various stages of development.

Cancelled Projects

• In late 2023, developer Orsted canceled the 2,400-MW Ocean Wind 1 and 2 projects in New Jersey, citing rising interest rates, high inflation, and supply chain delays.

• In January, Orsted withdrew from commitments to the Maryland Public Service Commission to build the Skipjack 1 and 2 projects, totaling 966 MW, but is still continuing with advanced development and permitting.

• Late last year, the developer of the 20-MW Icebreaker Wind project on the Ohio coast of Lake Erie halted the project amid rising costs and loss of funding.

Jones Act Impact on Offshore Turbines

Trump should Kill the Jones Act but will he?

Another significant hurdle for offshore wind development in the U.S. involves a century-old law known as the Jones Act.

The Jones Act requires vessels carrying cargo between U.S. points to be U.S.-built, U.S.-operated and U.S.-owned. It was written to boost the shipping industry after World War I. However, there are only three offshore wind turbine installation vessels in the world that are large enough for the turbines proposed for U.S. projects, and none are compliant with the Jones Act.

That means wind turbine components must be transported by smaller barges from U.S. ports and then installed by a foreign installation vessel waiting offshore, which raises the cost and likelihood of delays.

Trump failed to kill the Jones Act in his first term. Will he do so now?

Because of the Jones Act, the US has the highest shipping costs in the world.

Dear DOGE, please look into this. It’s a high-priority item for reasons other than turbines.

Wind Turbine Average Price of Key Critical Materials

The Biden administration set a goal to install 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. Bloomberg reports the actual number will be closer to half that.

Bloomberg: “As the price of construction climbs, developers are rapidly revising their plans — at great cost.“

Material costs have risen, labor costs have risen, the cost of money has shot up, and opposition to projects has risen.

Cancellations show these projects, at least the offshore ones, are hugely unprofitable even with big subsidies.

Has anyone truly factored in the mineral costs, concrete needed, and environmental impacts on birds and marine life, especially whales?

Mish Economic Rule

Except in cases of genuine national security interest, if a project cannot post a profit without subsidies, then it is not economical and should not be undertaken.

Wind turbines are not a national security item. Thus, developers should proceed at their own risk, not US taxpayer risk.

Dear DOGE request #2. Please cancel all subsidies.

Addendum

Speaking of fiascos with much more economic and global trade implications, pleased see my post: China Halts Rare Exports Used by US Technology Companies and the Military

Thus, Trump’s 50 percent tariff threats on China will do one of two things, perhaps both: Block all rare earth exports from China or start WWIII.

Good luck with that.

Oh, I forgot to add: Trade wars are good and easy to win.

Yet another crypto giant has fallen unceremoniously – this time it’s Alex Mashinsky, founder and CEO of Celsius who has “pled guilty to one count of commodities fraud and one count of securities fraud, which combined carry a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.”

According to a DOJ Southern District of New York press release out Monday, Mashinsky misled Celsius customers about the company’s profitability and the security of their investments, while secretly manipulating the price of the company’s proprietary token, CEL, for personal gain.

As part of his guilty plea, Mashinsky agreed to forfeit over $48 million in proceeds from the schemes.

Celsius, once marketed as a safe alternative to banks with catchy slogans like “Unbank Yourself,” promised high returns on crypto deposits through programs like “Earn” and “Custody.”

However, Mashinsky and his team engaged in deceptive practices, including misrepresenting the company’s financial health and using customer funds to inflate CEL’s price. These actions created the illusion of profitability and stability while leaving ordinary investors vulnerable to significant losses.

By 2021, Celsius claimed to manage $25 billion in assets, primarily from retail investors, before filing for bankruptcy in 2022.

Central to the fraud was Mashinsky’s orchestration of a scheme to artificially inflate CEL’s price, including using customer deposits to buy CEL tokens in the open market, the release said. This price manipulation enabled Mashinsky to sell his personal holdings of CEL for a substantial profit, totaling approximately $48 million, while misrepresenting these activities to customers.

As the company faced financial collapse, Mashinsky continued to falsely reassure investors of Celsius’s liquidity, even as he withdrew millions of his own assets from the platform, the DOJ said. 

And among other things, the DOJ says that Mashinsky “misrepresented, among other things, the safety of Celsius’s yield-generating activities“. 

The fallout from Celsius’s collapse was devastating for its customers, with over $4.7 billion in crypto assets locked up when the company halted withdrawals in June 2022.

Celsius subsequently filed for bankruptcy, leaving many retail investors unable to access their funds. 

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Alexander Mashinsky orchestrated one of the biggest frauds in the crypto industry.  He lured ordinary, retail crypto investors into investing billions of dollars in Celsius with false promises that their investments were low-risk.”

“Using catchy slogans like ‘Unbank Yourself,’ Mashinsky promised that Celsius would keep customers’ crypto as safe as money in a bank, but that, unlike a bank, Celsius returned most of the profits from its business back to users,” Williams said. 

He continued: “In reality, Celsius was never profitable.  To disguise the flaws in his business model, Mashinsky put investors’ money into riskier and riskier bets, and secretly used customer money to prop up the price of CEL token.  Mashinsky made tens of millions of dollars selling his own CEL at artificially high prices, while his customers were left holding the bag when the company went bankrupt.  Today’s convictions reflect this Office’s commitment to holding fraudsters like Mashinsky accountable for their crimes.”

Back in 2021, in a now-famous debate with Peter Schiff, Mashinsky was called out to his face about his firm’s inability to generate yield on bitcoin out of thin air. 

Documenting the exchange, Zero Hedge contributor Quoth the Raven wrote in a November 2021 criticism of Mashinsky’s interview:

The absolute worst and most irresponsible of all of the arguments from Mashinsky came when he suggested to viewers of the debate – many of whom likely lack financial sophistication – that both bitcoin and gold pay a yield.

Of course, what he meant was that they pay a yield on his Celsius platform, but he failed to qualify his statements to make that clear. Neither asset pays a yield in general and Mashinsky knows that.

QTR also documented on Zero Hedge when Celsius first paused withdrawls back in June 2022. 

Mashinsky had previously blamed short sellers for the plunge in Celsius, which should have been the tell.

“The CEO of crypto lending and staking platform Celsius Alex Mashinsky believes ‘the Sharks of Wall Street’ can smell blood in the water and are causing instability at several crypto projects. Mashinsky attributes recent Celsius (CEL) price falls, the brief Tether (USDT) depegging and collapse of Terra (LUNA) — at least in part — to short sellers on Wall Street,” Cointelegraph wrote in 2022.

“This is not a coincidence. This is somebody who decided, ‘You know what? I’m going to take down all of Celsius,’” he said during the event.

Turns out that somebody was the SDNY…

Authored by P Gosselin via the NoTricksZone

Germany’s CO2 tax is set to increase from the current 45 euros a tonne to 55 euros at the turn of 2025… This will drive up heating and energy costs for consumers and businesses.

The hefty rise means the tax on CO2 will almost double in just 2 years. In 2023, the carbon tax was 30 euros a tonne.

But it doesn’t stop there, reports Blackout News. The CO2 tax gets taxed by the value added tax, which is currently 19 percent.

“Households and businesses that rely on petrol, diesel, heating oil or natural gas are facing growing financial challenges, writes Blackout News. 

“A liter of petrol will be 4.3 cents more expensive due to the CO2 tax, diesel will rise by 4.7 cents per liter. Heating costs will also rise dramatically. A kilowatt hour of gas will become a further 0.21 cents more expensive, which means a total increase of 1.21 cents compared to the time before the CO2 tax. Heating oil costs 17.5 cents more per liter – an increase that affects many households.”

The sharp increases will certainly bode ill for the current SPD-Greens-FDP coalition government – which undergoes a vote of no confidence later this month in Parliament.

A no-confidence vote will lead to the dissolution of parliament and thus a new election within 60 days of the vote.

The pain at the gas pumps and from higher utility bills will make the current coalition government partners even more unpopular. But whether a new government led by Friedrich Merz (CDU) will change anything remains highly doubtful. Only the opposition AfD party has staunchly opposed the CO2 tax. Currently Merz’s CDU party is well ahead in the polls.

65 euros per tonne in 2026

The CO2 tax is set to rise to 65 euros a tonne in 2026, making the energy cost gap between Germany and other countries potentially unsustainable. Already there’s a growing dissatisfaction among German citizens and businesses as energy prices skyrocket into the stratosphere. Meanwhile the Trump administration as signaled a strong interest in making energy affordable again in USA.

Who’s profiting from the CO2 tax? The government.

According to Blackout News:

“More than 18 billion euros flowed into the coffers, including 10.7 billion euros from national emissions trading for heat and transport. Compared to 2022, revenue in this area increased by 67 percent. Revenue from European emissions trading also increased by 12% to €7.7 billion.”

Read entire article here (German)…

Rare earth metals are a set of 17 chemically similar elements which are integral for modern technologies.

From neodymium, used in powerful magnets that can withstand extreme temperatures, to beryllium, which is used to manufacture lightweight materials for fighter jets, these elements have a variety of crucial technological uses.

While rare earth metals are not particularly rare, they are seldom found in pure form and are often mixed with other minerals, making them costly to mine.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes rare earth metals production (in kilotonnes) of the eight leading countries from 1995 to 2023, using figures from the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2024 report.

China Is Dominating Rare Earth Metals Production

Global rare earth metals production has surged the past three decades, increasing from 75.7 kilotonnes in 1995 to over 350 kilotonnes in 2023, reflecting growing demand for these metals in high-tech applications.

China has been and still is the undisputed leader in the rare earth metals industry, accounting for over two-thirds of global production as of 2023.

The United States has made a big comeback in rare earth metals production, particularly from 2017 onwards. U.S. production jumped from 15.4 kilotonnes in 2017 to 43 kilotonnes in 2023, reflecting efforts to strengthen the domestic supply chain and reduce reliance on China.

Separating and processing rare earth metals is an integral step in the supply chain, and China has a near monopoly on this process. The country currently processes 90% of all rare earth metals and 99.9% of heavy rare earth metals, meaning it is importing metals from other countries and processing them.

In December 2023, China banned the export of rare earth metal extraction and separation technology, hoping to reinforce its dominant position when it comes to the global critical minerals supply chain.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has been ramping up efforts to bolster both domestic rare earth metals production and processing capabilities, awarding millions in defense contracts to companies like Lynas Earths and MP Materials to build their own separation and processing facilities.

To learn more about which critical minerals the U.S. depends on China for the most, check out this graphic that visualizes China’s share of U.S. imports by metal.

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to slap a 100 percent tariff on the economies of BRICS nations if they try to abandon the U.S. dollar as the chief international reserve currency, prompting speculation among economic observers.

“The idea that the BRICS countries are trying to move away from the dollar while we stand by and watch is over,” Trump wrote in a Nov. 30 Truth Social post.

BRICS—a nine-nation alliance of Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Russia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates—has been at the forefront of the de-dollarization initiative in recent years.

The global campaign to shift away from the greenback generated significant momentum following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

Officials from these countries have been employing measures to reduce their reliance on the buck.

In addition to engaging in bilateral trade settled in local currencies, there has been years-long speculation that the bloc would establish a new reserve currency to rival the dollar.

If the BRICS nations followed through on using a basket of currencies—tossing the ruble, yuan, rupee, and real into a big bowl and creating one uniform currency—it would not affect the dollar, economist Peter St Onge said.

Internal BRICS trade accounts for a little more than 1 percent of global trade, and the group’s share of worldwide reserves is approximately 5 percent.

By comparison, according to data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the U.S. dollar still represents approximately 60 percent of foreign exchange reserves. The next closest is the euro, accounting for fewer than one-fifth of global reserves.

Additionally, the Banker for International Settlements’ 2022 Triennial Central Bank Survey showed that the U.S. dollar accounted for 88 percent of global transactions, a figure that has stayed about the same for the past two decades.

“A basket of basket cases does not stand a snowball chance of replacing the dollar, at least outside trade between BRICS countries, say, between China and Russia,” Onge said in a video posted to X in October.

“With those numbers, a basket of BRICS will barely make a dent in the dollar.”

Still, Trump has been vocal about employing the tariff weapon to halt the formation of a rival to the U.S. dollar.

“We require a commitment from these countries that they will neither create a new BRICS currency, nor back any other currency to replace the mighty U.S. dollar or, they will face 100 percent tariffs, and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful U.S. economy,” the president-elect recently wrote.

“They can go find another ’sucker!’”

While he does not believe BRICS will successfully replace the U.S. dollar in worldwide trade, Trump stated that any country that attempts to “should wave goodbye to America.”

This is not the first time Trump has weighed in on imposing tariffs on anti-dollar nations.

In October, speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago with Bloomberg, Trump warned that the United States could slip into “Third World status” if it loses reserve dominance.

“We have to have that. We cannot lose it,” Trump said. “You’ll go to Third World status in this country because you take a look at the way things are running.”

He also pledged to implement a 100 percent levy on any country considering moving away from the dollar.

“If a country tells me, ‘Sir, we like you very much, but we’re going to no longer adhere to being in the reserve currency. We’re not going to salute the dollar anymore,’ I’ll say, ‘That’s OK, and you’re going to pay a 100 percent tariff on everything you sell into the United States, and we love your product. I hope you sell a lot of it into the United States, but you’re going to pay 100 percent tariff,’” Trump said.

“He will then follow it up by saying, ‘Sir, it would be an honor to stay with the reserve currency.’”

At a September campaign rally, Trump told the crowd that many countries are exiting the dollar.

“They’re not going to leave the dollar with me,” he said.

While there have been signals that the group would start a reserve currency, officials have appeared to veer away from this goal, said Michael Wan, a senior currency analyst at MUFG Research.

“While BRICS has at times talked about creating a new unified BRICS currency, the latest summit in Kazan in October did not put an emphasis on creating a new currency,” Wan stated in a Dec. 2 note.

“It’s unclear how 100 percent tariffs on a group of countries that make up 37 percent of global GDP would happen in practice, but serves as a possible preview of tariff diplomacy under Trump 2.0.”

Other countries have expressed interest in becoming official BRICS members.

Views on the Anti-Dollar Crusade

Despite the BRICS expansion and the formation of BRICS-Plus—an extension of the formal partnership of other emerging economies—the U.S. dollar hegemony has remained intact.

Its dominance in the world economy has strengthened amid the Federal Reserve’s 2 1/2-year tighter monetary policy, robust growth prospects, and geopolitical tensions.

The U.S. Treasury market has also attracted immense foreign investment, with global holdings hitting a record high of nearly $8.7 trillion in September.

The U.S. dollar index, a gauge of the buck against a weighted basket of currencies, has surged 5 percent this year, even as the Federal Reserve started its new easing cycle in September.

Other currencies belonging to BRICS members have weakened considerably against the dollar.

The Indian rupee plunged to an all-time low against the dollar on Dec. 2 after new data revealed a sharp economic slowdown in the world’s fifth-largest economy.

India’s GDP growth rate eased to a lower-than-expected 5.4 percent in the third quarter, down from 6.7 percent in the second quarter.

The Russian ruble continues to sink, trading at less than a penny to the U.S. dollar. The ruble’s descent has been fueled by falling crude oil prices and the lasting effects of U.S.-led Western sanctions.

The Chinese yuan has slumped more than 2 percent against the buck this year. A Reuters poll of market watchers suggests China’s economy will grow by 4.8 percent in 2024, falling short of the government’s target.

Beijing’s economic growth rate could cool to 4.5 percent in 2025.

Still, BRICS members appear optimistic that their long-term de-dollarization strategy will work.

At last month’s annual BRICS summit in the Russian city of Kazan, the group continued to lay the anti-dollar groundwork.

Leaders and representatives reiterated their pledge to bolster economic ties and increase the representation of their national currencies in trade and financial transactions.

The organization’s newest development is the proposal for a BRICS-based grain exchange with the institution’s New Development Work, which could play a hefty role in the worldwide agricultural market.

“A number of BRICS countries are among the world’s largest producers of grain, vegetables, and oilseeds. We propose opening a BRICS grain exchange,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the yearly retreat.

“This would facilitate predictable price indicators for products and raw materials, taking into account their special role in ensuring food security.”

Brazil controls 60 percent of all soybean exports, Russia is the world’s largest wheat exporter, and India maintains 40 percent of the international rice trade, including 65 percent of basmati rice shipments.

At the same time, there are mixed views about the BRICS nations dethroning the king dollar.

According to Dmitry Dolgin, chief economist at ING, BRICS enjoys substantial influence in global exchange reserves and the fuel trade.

However, because gold is the main rival to the dollar, the precious metal is underrepresented in the members’ central banks.

Ultimately, Dolgin says, the U.S. dollar is not facing “immediate danger” in areas such as capital markets and international banking.

“The role of BRICS is still low, helping the dollar retain its strong footing,” he stated in a note.

Economists at Capital Economics said BRICS faces “significant practical challenges” in launching a currency.

“It wouldn’t in any case solve any of the challenges they would face in trying to move away from the dollar,” they wrote in a note. “Whether or not the BRICS make an explicit pledge, a BRICS currency is not a viable challenger to the dollar.”

A noticeable trend among the group is the rise of the Chinese yuan’s share for international payments. SWIFT data show that the Chinese yuan’s share has increased to around 3 percent, up from about 1 percent before the pandemic.

While knocking the dollar off the global currency mountain “is out of the question for the foreseeable future,” Bastian von Beschwitz, the Federal Reserve’s research chief of global financial markets, says the yuan’s growth is a trend to monitor in the coming years.

The Fed researcher cited growing usage, government support efforts, and consequences emanating from Western sanctions on Russia as potential reasons for the yuan’s expansion.

“Over the last 10 years, the international role of the renminbi has increased notably from a very low starting point. Despite this increase, its international usage still lags behind even those of the British pound and Japanese yen,” von Beschwitz stated in an August paper.

“Going forward, it will be interesting to see if the renminbi usage in trade continues to increase and whether that increased usage ultimately leads to a larger fraction of FX reserves being held in renminbi.”

The renminbi is the official name of China’s currency, while the yuan is the currency’s basic unit of measure.

Trump has been wielding the tariff weapon in the weeks before he returns to the White House. He recently threatened to impose a 25 percent tariff on Canada and Mexico. The president-elect also said he would hit China with a 10 percent levy in addition to the current crop of tariffs. The aim, Trump says, is to push these countries to improve border security and halt the drug trade.

Russia shot back after Trump’s latest threats, warning the measure would backfire on the United States.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that the dollar’s appeal is diminishing and that more countries are diversifying their foreign economic and trade activities.

“If the United States uses force, as they say, economic force, to compel countries to use the dollar it will further strengthen the trend of switching to national currencies,” Peskov said.

“The dollar is beginning to lose its appeal as a reserve currency for a number of countries.”

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

If US security was represented as a great dam holding back a historic flood, today it would be a Chinese built Temu dam held together with paper mache and ramen noodles, ready to snap in half and kill a million people downstream. In 2024 there is no security: The public simply operates on blind faith that no one will take advantage of the vast weaknesses built into the system and government officials hide any risks associated with their policies.

But what are the sources of the danger headed our way? Why is 2025 becoming more and more prominent as an inception date for an attack?

Donald Trump’s election win, his impending return to the White House and his promise to close the border and deport millions of illegals could be the cleansing tsunami that America needs, but it could also inversely trigger a host of foreign attacks, domestic attacks as well as false flag events. 

Here are the reasons why the next year is ripe for a large scale event…

Open Borders Have Created Threat Saturation

“Homeland Security” is a misnomer; the current head of DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas, openly admitted to a room full of border patrol agents this year that over 85% of illegal immigrants apprehended at the southern border are released into the country. Mayorkas originally claimed the release rate was 70% in an interview with FOX News, only to raise that number to 85% when agents pressed him during the private meeting.

Reports indicate that at least 400,000 known criminals have crossed the border illegally during Joe Biden’s presidency, and 13,000 of those immigrants were convicted murderers. What we don’t know, however, is how many terror suspects and foreign agents have also entered the US in the past four years.

The DHS releases limited data. Migrants that get a hit on the terror watch list are held and cataloged, of course, but with wide open borders and the Biden White House running interference there’s no way to know how many slipped through.

The political left argues that “no terror attacks have happened on Biden’s watch”, but these are the same people that originally denied the existence of Venezuelan gangs taking over apartment complexes in multiple cities across the country.  The saturation of illegal migrants will inevitably lead to a terror event in America, it’s only a matter of time.  Why?  Because now they are under threat of being removed en masse.

Whatever their original plans, the reality of mass deportation puts these people on a time table and some may act out violently in response.  Many will feel entitled to stay in the US despite their criminal entry. 

It may not happen on Biden’s watch, but his administration will have been the catalyst that made deportations necessary and the resulting attacks possible.

Geopolitical Tensions And Open Borders Don’t Mix

I believe an attack is inevitable in 2025 primarily because of the geopolitical brush fires being ignited across the globe right now. There is also always the looming danger of false flag events designed by covert actors trying to trick the public into placing blame on the wrong culprit.

The war in Ukraine and the expanding wars in the Middle East involving Israel (and the resurgence in Syria) are dependent on US support and possibly future military involvement on the ground. It’s fair to say that without US involvement, all of these wars would end rather quickly. One can debate the ethical necessity of America engaging in proxy conflicts or the need for the US to protect certain allies and assets, but a lot of foreign elements view the US as the root cause of their pain.

They also know the easiest way to attack the US is through the doorway that the current establishment has left wide open on the southern border.

The US has been hit with a mass immigration storm while also embroiled in at least two regional proxy wars that have the potential to expand into world wars. Why wouldn’t Russia, China, or multiple nations in the Middle East use that weakness to their advantage?  Even more disturbing, the globalists that want the US to send troops to defend Ukraine or Israel could also perpetrate an attack that falsely leads back to Russia or Iran.

I continue to argue that America has no reason to be involved in the majority of foreign entanglements and that we should stay out of these conflicts entirely. But we are where we are.  There are malicious people within our own government that want to force Americans into war, and there are foreign actors that hate us because of the actions of these same elites.  The dominoes have already been set in motion and guess where that leaves us?

Conservatives Inherit Disaster While Leftists Go Weather Underground

The  conservative sweep on election day means we inherit all the messes that Joe Biden and his handlers created – Economic, political, social, and geopolitical. There will also be considerable motivation for establishment elites to create chaos from thin air while conservatives hold governmental power, and this presents a third domestic threat which will definitely arise in the wake of a Trump presidency: Leftist activists.

The goal of the progressive establishment when it comes to attacking conservatives is to create so much instability and fear that conservatives feel compelled to set aside their principles and the constitution in order to restore order. In this way the left hopes to “prove” that conservatives are the “fascists” they often accuse us of being.

For the past several years conservatives have also been labeled “domestic terrorists” bent on civil war, but it’s actually the progressive left that engages in the majority of civil unrest and violence in the name of political expediency.

The first time leftists were enraged by a political loss and took to the streets to riot, most conservatives and even the Trump administration erred on the side of constitutional flexibility. The problem is, leftists have a habit of exploiting free speech rights as a springboard for mob intimidation. Also, most of the riots took place in Democrat controlled states and cities where local officials defended the violence and tried to block any intervention.

Some people argue that leftists are no longer motivated to engage in this kind of unrest and the lack of chaos after Trump’s election win is proof.  I beg to differ.  First, leftists are not a hardy bunch and they tend to wait for warmer weather before going out to cause disruption.  Second, Trump isn’t even in office yet.  Just wait until the mass deportations start and then you’ll see all kinds of riots.

The political left believes that mob violence and looting is a form of free speech and “reparations” for perceived injustices. They feel completely justified in their behavior and that makes them exceedingly dangerous. If you see the mass burning of random neighborhoods as an “ends justify the means” situation, then you can probably convince yourself that any crime is acceptable.

This trend of terrorism as activism is likely to evolve beyond simple mobs in the next round. In other words, under a new Trump Administration we should expect smaller Weather Underground-like groups among progressive activists; groups that will engage in terror attacks. The two assassination attempts against Trump this year support this hypothesis.

To summarize, there are four distinct instigators of political violence all active going into 2025:

• Organized criminal gangs crossing the border as migrants.

• Foreign agents and terrorists slipping into the US using mass immigration as a cover.

• Leftist activists radicalized to believe they are righteous in their violence.

• Establishment elites and covert agencies creating false flag events.

The types of attacks we face comprise a wide spectrum and I fear that conservatives may very well throw support behind a martial law scenario should the situation break out the way I think it will. Infrastructure attacks would be the most devastating (and would not require a high level of effort or sophistication); a lot of people may see military intervention as the best option.

I would argue that this is exactly what the establishment wants. They want the liberty movement to abandon our foundations in the name of security – They want us to take shortcuts that lead us down an authoritarian path. If we are to increase the safety of the American populace it’s going to take years of work to fix the mess that progressives have left behind. No shortcuts like martial law.

We’ll have to close the borders tight (The one place where a national guard or military presence makes sense). We’ll have to deport millions of illegal migrants already in the country. We’ll have to reduce our presence in global proxy wars. We’ll have to secure communities through localized efforts (militias).

Most importantly, should violence break out, community participation in defense is paramount. The locals need to be prepared for grid down, for rioting, for random attacks. It’s the general public that needs to be ready. Regular civilians are the people that will be there the moment disaster strikes and they must be empowered to take action.

When a terror attack takes minutes to achieve, regular people who are there when it occurs have seconds to respond. Until we can repair the damage done to our national security over the past four years, the public is the first and most important line of defense.

*  *  *

One survival food company, Prepper All-Naturals, has proactively dropped prices to allow Americans to stock up ahead of projected hikes in beef prices. Their 25-year shelf life steaks currently come at a 25% discount with promo code “invest25”.