Business
FACT CHECK: Who’s to blame for high grocery, energy, other costs?
From The Center Square
By
With inflationary costs reaching a 40-year high under the Biden-Harris administration, President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and others in their administration have repeatedly blamed businesses, livestock producers, grocery stores, oil and natural gas companies and others for high prices.
At the same time, a record number of businesses closed, declared bankruptcy and laid off hundreds of thousands of workers, citing high inflationary costs. In a recent report, nearly half of all small businesses said they won’t survive a second Harris term, higher costs and increased taxes, The Center Square reported.
Despite this, Harris says she plans to implement price controls, increase taxes on businesses and allow the 2017 tax cuts to expire, creating a $6 trillion chasm between her plan and former President Donald Trump’s, the Wall Street Journal reported.
As Americans struggled with increased grocery costs, including the high cost of meat, producers were faced with higher fuel, feed, grain and hay costs, driving up their operational costs that were passed onto consumers, according to multiple reports. In response, in 2021, the White House National Economic Council blamed high meat prices on “dominant corporations in uncompetitive markets taking advantage of their market power.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce disagrees, arguing that market concentration in the meat packing industry had been virtually unchanged for 25 years at the time. It then asked “if high prices are the result of corporate greed, why did these ‘greedy’ companies wait two decades to raise prices?” It clarified that increased meat prices were driven by supply and demand and overall inflation, largely created by increased federal spending and debt.
With costs increasing across the board, some companies adjusted by selling less product for more, referred to as shrinkflation, The Center Square first reported in 2022. However, Biden and Harris blamed companies for higher costs, reportedly in response to Democratic operatives advising them to do so, The Washington Post reported.
“What we said is, ‘You need a villain or an explanation for this. If you don’t provide one, voters will fill one in. The right is providing an explanation, which is that you’re spending too much,’” one Democratic operative told the Post. “That point finally became convincing to people in the White House.”
“And thus began the effort to wrongly blame employers for high prices,” the chamber’s executive vice president Neil Bradley said in a report identifying examples of the White House “wrongly blaming businesses for high prices.”
Also in 2022, Biden publicly blamed container companies for high shipping costs. News reports pointed to supply chain issues impacted by worker shortages, changes in customer spending that resulted in more cargo arriving in ports that the ports couldn’t handle, and port fines and fees contributing to higher costs.
The chamber notes that increased prices “resulted from consumers shifting their spending from services to goods” during the COVID-lockdown era, causing increased cargo demand. “Increased demand created backlogs at the ports, raising prices even higher. As supply and demand normalized, prices fell.”
By 2023, the president again publicly blamed the U.S. oil and natural gas industry for gas prices reaching a seven-year high. This was after he took more than 200 actions against the U.S. oil and natural gas industry, U.S. House Democrats introduced a bill that would have added a 50% per barrel tax, and the U.S. Treasury Department proposed a $110 billion tax hike on the industry, The Center Square reported.
But the industry doesn’t control the market, it’s subject to it like everyone else, Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association President Ed Longanecker said. The Biden-Harris administration could have lowered costs by expediting permits, lifting the federal leasing ban and creating “a more stable regulatory environment that provides certainty to producers and investors,” he told The Center Square. “Overburdensome regulations, increased taxes and anti-oil and natural gas rhetoric” exacerbated high energy prices and raised consumer costs, he said.
The administration has also repeatedly sued the industry and Texas, which leads U.S. production, exports and energy creation. In response, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has aggressively fought to protect the Texas industry from Biden policies, the governor argues.
Also in 2023, the chair of Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers said grocery sector profit margins “were elevated” and needed to “pass-through” to consumers. Earlier this year, Biden again claimed, “there are still too many corporations in America ripping people off: price gouging, junk fees, greedflation, shrinkflation.”
The chamber refutes these claims, pointing to federal data, arguing that “higher grocery prices are a result of inflationary pressure across the supply chain and basic supply and demand dynamics,” explained by Department of Agriculture and Government Accountability Office economists.
Biden and Harris blaming businesses for high prices is “entirely backward,” Bradley says. “The truth is the Administration’s own fiscal and regulatory policies are driving inflation, and the American consumer is left holding the bag.”
From the Montreal Economic Institute
Seven in 10 Canadians are concerned about the negative impact of cancelled energy projects on Canadian jobs.
More than half of Canadiens are against the federal mandate forcing all new cars sold in Canada to be electric by 2035, shows a new MEI-Ipsos survey released this morning.
“Across the country, Canadians are a lot more hesitant to ban conventional vehicles than their elected representatives in Ottawa are,” said Krystle Wittevrongel, director of research at the MEI. “They have legitimate concerns, most notably with the cost of those cars, and federal and provincial politicians should take note.”
The poll shows that 55 per cent of Canadians disagree with Ottawa’s decision to ban the sale of conventional vehicles by 2035. In every region surveyed, a larger number of respondents were against the ban than in favour of it.
Among Canadians who don’t already own an electric vehicle, slightly fewer than one in four said their next car would be electric.
Key reasons cited for this lukewarm attitude included the high cost of the cars (70 per cent), the lack of charging infrastructure (66 per cent), and their reduced performance in Canada’s cold climate (64 per cent).
Across the country, only 26 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa’s plan to ban the sale of conventional vehicles is realistic. Meanwhile, 66 per cent maintain that the plan is unrealistic.
“Canadians understand that 2035 is sooner than Ottawa thinks, and nothing indicates electric vehicle adoption rates are going to follow what federal lawmakers anticipated,” notes Ms. Wittevrongel. “Concerns with their high cost, the lack of charging infrastructure and their poor performance in our cold climate remain strong.”
The survey also found Canadians were troubled by the effects that federal legislation has had in stalling or cancelling energy projects.
Seven in 10 respondents were concerned by the negative impact on Canadian jobs arising from the cancellation of tens of billions of dollars in energy projects due to regulatory hurdles.
Slightly more than three in four Canadians (76 per cent) say the federal government’s environmental impact assessment project takes too long, with only nine per cent taking the opposite view.
“Canadians understand that our energy industry plays a key role in Canada’s economy, and that lengthy approval delays from regulators have a negative impact on a project’s chances of happening,” explains Ms. Wittevrongel. “They are looking for leadership in Ottawa and in the provinces to cut down on bureaucratic hurdles and shorten the time it takes to get shovels in the ground.”
A sample of 1,190 Canadians 18 years of age and older was polled between September 18th and 22nd, 2024. The results are accurate to within ± 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here: https://www.iedm.org/wp-
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.
Haulage bridge at Cando Rail & Terminals’ Sturgeon Terminal in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland, near Edmonton. Photo courtesy Cando Rail & Terminals
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Will Gibson
Cando Rail & Terminals to invest $200 million to support Dow’s Path2Zero petrochemical complex
A major rail hub in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland will double in size to support a new carbon-neutral plastic production facility, turning the terminal into the largest of its kind in the country.
Cando Rail & Terminals will invest $200 million at its Sturgeon Terminal after securing Dow Chemical as an anchor tenant for its expanded terminal, which will support the planned $8.9 billion Path2Zero petrochemical complex being built in the region northeast of Edmonton.
“Half of the terminal expansion will be dedicated to the Dow project and handle the products produced at the Path2Zero complex,” says Steve Bromley, Cando’s chief commercial officer.
Steve Bromley, chief commercial officer with Cando Rail & Terminals.
By incorporating carbon capture and storage, the complex, which began construction this spring, is expected to be the world’s first to produce polyethylene with net zero scope 1 and 2 emissions.
The widely used plastic’s journey to global markets will begin by rail.
“Dow stores their polyethylene in covered railcars while waiting to sell it,” Bromley says.
“When buyers purchase it, we will build unit trains and those cars will go to the Port of Prince Rupert and eventually be shipped to their customers in Asia.”
A “unit train” is a single train where all the cars carry the same commodity to the same destination.
The expanded Cando terminal will have the capacity to prepare 12,000-foot unit trains – or trains that are more than three-and-a-half kilometers long.
Construction will start on the expansion in 2025 at a 320-acre site west of Cando’s existing terminal, which 20 industrial customers use to stage and store railcars as well as assemble unit trains.
Bromley, a former CP Rail executive who joined Cando in 2013, says the other half of the terminal’s capacity not used by the Dow facility will be sold to other major projects in the region.
The announcement is the latest in a series of investments for Cando to grow its operations in Alberta that will see the company spend more than $500 million by 2027.
The company, which is majority owned by the Alberta Investment Management Corporation previously spent $100 million to acquire a 1,700-railcar facility in Lethbridge along with $150 million to build its existing Sturgeon terminal.
Cando Rail’s existing Sturgeon Terminal near Edmonton, Alberta. Photo courtesy Cando Rail & Terminals
“Alberta is important to us – we have 300 active employees in this province and handle 900,000 railcars annually here,” Bromley says.
“But we are looking for opportunities across North America, both in Canada and the United States as well.”
Cando released the news of the Sturgeon Terminal expansion at the Alberta Industrial Heartland Association’s annual conference on Sept. 19.
“This is an investment in critical infrastructure that underpins additional growth in the region,” says Mark Plamondon, the association’s executive director.
The announcement came as the association marked its 25th anniversary at the event, which Plamondon saw as fitting.
“Dow’s Path2Zero came to the region because of the competitive advantages gained by clustering heavy industry. Competitive advantages are built from infrastructure that’s already here, such as the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, which transports and stores carbon dioxide for industry,” he says.
“Having that level of integration can turn inputs into one operation into outputs for another. Competitive advantages for one become advantages for others. Cando’s investment will attract others just as Dow’s Path2Zero was a pull for additional investment.”
Federal Greenwash law: guilty until proven innocent
Some dockworkers earn more than $400,000 a year
Cartels, UN, and NGOs Fuel U.S. Border Crisis – A Report from Colombia
‘There Were Bodies In Trees’: Rural South Decimated By Hurricane Helene As Death Toll Rises Above 130
-
COVID-192 days agoWill We Fall For The Same Old PCR Tricks Again?
-
Alberta1 day agoDanielle Smith delivers on promise to protect gender-confused children in Alberta
-
Alberta14 hours ago
Alberta rail hub doubling in size to transport plastic from major new carbon-neutral plant
-
Alberta1 day agoChris Scott and Rebecca Ingram attempting Class Action Lawsuit against Province for COVID restrictions
-
Brownstone Institute1 day agoThe FOIA Lady Pleads the Fifth
-
Economy11 hours agoOttawa’s proposed ‘electricity’ regulations may leave Canadians out in the cold
-
Daily Caller2 days agoBureaucrats Worry Democracy Will Get In The Way Of Their Climate Agenda
-
DEI21 hours agoCA school taught 5th graders gender identity, had them teach it to kindergartners