FTC Orders Major Retailers to Document Supply Chain Disruptions

[Euclid]

Convicted One

 

 

Euclid

Well, you may be right.  Maybe this inflation will just fizzle out and end soon.  That would certainly be a sweet relief.  And I have no idea how much printed money will result in a certain amount of inflation.

 

 

I probably should have worded my epistle differently.   Specific to "unearned income", try telling some rich guy that he's destroying our country with his unearned bounty, and watch him go off on you. 

 

When I refer to unearned money, I to not mean money possessed by people who don't deserve it because they did not earn it.  I am refering to money that was not earned by anyone as a way to descibe so-called "printed money" that fundamentally causes inflation because it "inflates" the money supply.  So there is no reason for the poor guy or the rich guy to be offended by my reference to people with pockets full of unearned money. 

[Euclid]

Convicted One

 

 

 

Euclid

That real cause is not that capitalists smell money in people’s pockets and move to get their hands on it by price gouging.

 

 

 

Well, I guess we'll just have to differ there. I sincerely believe that to be a factor (one among several).  Just the knowledge that the trees are full of fruit is enough to get some people kicking themselves unless they are out there picking at sunrise.

 

To some extent, I agree with your point on this.

 

I can understand the argument that vendors might raise their prices as on opportunity because inflation can be used as the cover/excuse.  In other words, they will raise prices to make more profit when their costs are not actually rising that much.  It helps that inflation is widely publicized so consumers will understand the reason/excuse for raising the price.

 

But such vendors are overlooking one key point.  That is that even though you think you have a right to raise your price because of inflation, customers always have the right to change vendors.  

 

So it is very wise to try hard to not raise your price rather than raise it under the excuse of inflation.  In many cases, it is better to hold line on your price even if inflation is raising your cost.   It is powerful marketing to signal to customers that you are not raising your price during the stress of inflation because you understand that customers are also under the stress of being drowned in rising prices during the dread of inflation. 

[Convicted One]

Euclid

But such vendors are overlooking one key point.  That is that even though you think you have a right to raise your price because of inflation, customers always have the right to change vendors.  

Perspective is key.  Two different people can look at the same set of facts, and draw opposed conclusions based upon which factors are most important to them personally.  And each have valid basis.  (since their priorities may differ).

People have a penchant for dramatizing mundane happenings. If one  were to mention a concerted effort,  some people  immediately  envision a darkened room, drawn draperies, bent noses, and hushed  whispers in a Jimmy Cagney movie.  When in contrast, an idea can be born of a gentleman's discussion out on a golf course between CEOs of competing companies, "sharing mutual concerns".

What might appear to be a "conspiracy" to onlookers, might be no more than exploiting a "high barrier to entry" by someone actually in the driver's seat, etc.

What's Walmart gonna do, buy their own transoceanic shipping company? (I'll leave it to you to fill in the blanks)   

[Convicted One]

I also question who's  "windfall" is more detrimental to the local economy.

Joe Lunchpail with his $3,000 of unearned gains, or Snidely Hustlebuck who makes millions importing items no longer manufactured by American workers?

Perhaps current goings on have more to do with the mule deciding to claim a larger share of Snidely's loot?

[Euclid]

Convicted One

 

 

Euclid

But such vendors are overlooking one key point.  That is that even though you think you have a right to raise your price because of inflation, customers always have the right to change vendors.  

 

 

Perspective is key.  Two different people can look at the same set of facts, and draw opposed conclusions based upon which factors are most important to them personally.  And each have valid basis.  (since their priorities may differ).

People have a penchant for dramatizing mundane happenings. If one  were to mention a concerted effort,  some people  immediately  envision a darkened room, drawn draperies, bent noses, and hushed  whispers in a Jimmy Cagney movie.  When in contrast, an idea can be born of a gentleman's discussion out on a golf course between CEOs of competing companies, "sharing mutual concerns".

What's Walmart gonna do, buy their own transoceanic shipping company? (I'll leave it to you to fill in the blanks)   

 

There is a broad trend that has been underway for several years now in which people are shopping online.  Over the time of this trend, the supply chain has been able to keep up.  But the trend has suddenly been jolted into high gear with the lockdown keeping people sheltered at home.  So along with staying home, they avoid stores and shop online.  This has caused a demand spike on the supply chain for online purchases.  Where the spike first became apparent was when it coincided with this year's Christmas shopping, which is a predictable and well known annual demand spike.  

So you have the long range shopping at home demand spike suddenly surging when it coincides with the annual Christmas demand spike, and this development has broken the back of the supply chain.  But once this Christmas spike passes, the demand will recede back to the long range trend spike of shopping at home.  It will also recede if we get out of this sheltering at home trend.

So it seems to me that once we get past this Christmas season, the supply chain may be able to keep up for a year or even longer.  That will give some time to improve and add capacity to the supply chain infrastructure.  

But there is one more point.................

[Steven Otte]

A reminder that politics is always a forbidden topic on these Forums, regardless of how you tie it into other topics. And since it's apparently impossible to discuss the global pandemic without the discussion becoming political or veering into conspiracy theories, everyone had best stay away from that topic, too. Many posts have been deleted from this thread.

Unless you are discussing the direct impact of the pandemic on the railroads, COVID is officially off-topic for these Forums. 

[Convicted One]

How many instances can we document where involved parties  have stated that they are willingly involved in slowing down the merchandise cycle?

 

There was Union Pacific among the first stating that it was  (at one point) embargo'ing bringing more containers inland, because it's inland yards were packed.

There was the trucking guy in the video who was complaining that the Ports were refusing the return of empty containers (unless they were of a certain color) because there was no place left to put them

There are the Ports themselves who are holding ships off shore, waiting their turn for dock access.

 

Any more anyone can think of? 

[Murphy Siding]

Convicted One

How many instances can we document where involved parties  have stated that they are willingly involved in slowing down the merchandise cycle?

 

There was Union Pacific among the first stating that it was  (at one point) embargo'ing bringing more containers inland, because it's inland yards were packed.

There was the trucking guy in the video who was complaining that the Ports were refusing the return of empty containers (unless they were of a certain color) because there was no place left to put them

There are the Ports themselves who are holding ships off shore, waiting their turn for dock access.

 

Any more anyone can think of? 

 

Willingly? The three examples you give all sound like they were forced into making those decisions.

[BaltACD]

Convicted One

How many instances can we document where involved parties  have stated that they are willingly involved in slowing down the merchandise cycle? 

There was Union Pacific among the first stating that it was  (at one point) embargo'ing bringing more containers inland, because it's inland yards were packed.

There was the trucking guy in the video who was complaining that the Ports were refusing the return of empty containers (unless they were of a certain color) because there was no place left to put them

There are the Ports themselves who are holding ships off shore, waiting their turn for dock access. 

Any more anyone can think of? 

They are not 'willingly' slowing down anything - they are taking self defense measures to insure continued fluidity of their own operations.  If they don't take those measures they will become gridlocked by the excessive volume and grind to a absolute stop.

[Convicted One]

Murphy Siding

Willingly? The three examples you give all sound like they were forced into making those decisions.

So then, this must be the rare occasion where  you accept the ol' "he started it" alibi?   

[Convicted One]

BaltACD

They are not 'willingly' slowing down anything - they are taking self defense measures to insure continued fluidity of their own operations.  If they don't take those measures they will become gridlocked by the excessive volume and grind to a absolute stop.

Regardless if one feels they have a good reason  to shoot their wife?  It doesn't change the net outcome.

Illustrating the fact that despite several entities having a willing hand in restricting commerce, it didn't require a formal  "conspiracy" to orchestrate.  Tin foil hats be damned.

[BaltACD]

Convicted One

 

BaltACD

They are not 'willingly' slowing down anything - they are taking self defense measures to insure continued fluidity of their own operations.  If they don't take those measures they will become gridlocked by the excessive volume and grind to a absolute stop. 

Regardless if one feels they have a good reason  to shoot their wife?  It doesn't change the net outcome.

Illustrating the fact that despite several entities having a willing hand in restricting commerce, it didn't require a formal  "conspiracy" to orchestrate.  Tin foil hats be damned.

So - you are a juggler - how many objects can you keep in the air at one time and keep them all in the air on a continuing basis, before you wife dies BECAUSE you couldn't keep them all in the air.  What happens when someone throws more objects into your juggling routine?

Transportation companies are constrained by the capacity of their physical plants - that includes Ships, Trains, Trucks, Pipeline and Airlines.  Demand in excess of capacity creates slow downs as there is competition for a finite amount of resources - resources that take months, to years, to decades to increase.  One element in a multi-modal supply chain can overwhelm succeeding elements.

[charlie hebdo]

Convicted One

 

 

BaltACD

They are not 'willingly' slowing down anything - they are taking self defense measures to insure continued fluidity of their own operations.  If they don't take those measures they will become gridlocked by the excessive volume and grind to a absolute stop.

 

 

Regardless if one feels they have a good reason  to shoot their wife?  It doesn't change the net outcome.

Illustrating the fact that despite several entities having a willing hand in restricting commerce, it didn't require a formal  "conspiracy" to orchestrate.  Tin foil hats be damned.

 

If the shoe fits...

[BaltACD]

charlie hebdo

If the shoe fits...

The supply chain is not one size fits all - most shoes don't fit.

[charlie hebdo]

BaltACD

 

 

charlie hebdo

If the shoe fits...

 

 

The supply chain is not one size fits all - most shoes don't fit.

 

Uh, Balt: My comment pertained to CO's perseverations about supposedly deliberate disruptions in the supply chain.

[BaltACD]

charlie hebdo

 

BaltACD 

charlie hebdo

If the shoe fits... 

The supply chain is not one size fits all - most shoes don't fit. 

Uh, Balt: My comment pertained to CO's perseverations about supposedly deliberate disruptions in the supply chain.

CO's shoes don't fit.

[charlie hebdo]

BaltACD

 

 

charlie hebdo

 

BaltACD 

charlie hebdo

If the shoe fits... 

The supply chain is not one size fits all - most shoes don't fit. 

Uh, Balt: My comment pertained to CO's perseverations about supposedly deliberate disruptions in the supply chain.

 

 

CO's shoes don't fit.

 

Haha!  He wears conspiracy shoes, size 10 narrow.

[Euclid]

If there are prices rising in the supply chain, it is caused by the overload of the supply chain due to the demand spike. 

 

But it is incorrect to conclude that the inflation that is raising prices across the board is being caused by supply the chain problem.  That makes no sense.  Why would supply chain failures cause systemic inflation falling on all prices in the country?  The inflation we are experiencing is a systemic problem; but it is a not a problem caused by the supply chain.  It is a problem within the money supply caused by economic policies.  We need an explanation of why we are adopting policies that cause inflation.  

[Murphy Siding]

Convicted One

 

 

Murphy Siding

Willingly? The three examples you give all sound like they were forced into making those decisions.

 

 

So then, this must be the rare occasion where  you accept the ol' "he started it" alibi?   

 

I can't comment as I'm not even sure what you are trying to imply.

[Murphy Siding]

Euclid

If there are prices rising in the supply chain, it is caused by the overload of the supply chain due to the demand spike. 

 

But it is incorrect to conclude that the inflation that is raising prices across the board is being caused by supply the chain problem.  That makes no sense.  Why would supply chain failures cause systemic inflation falling on all prices in the country?  The inflation we are experiencing is a systemic problem; but it is a not a problem caused by the supply chain.  It is a problem within the money supply caused by economic policies.  We need an explanation of why we are adopting policies that cause inflation.  

 

you mean its not just supply and demand? Too many dollars chasing too few products that makes prices rise?

[MidlandMike]

Euclid

If there are prices rising in the supply chain, it is caused by the overload of the supply chain due to the demand spike. 

 

But it is incorrect to conclude that the inflation that is raising prices across the board is being caused by supply the chain problem.  That makes no sense.  Why would supply chain failures cause systemic inflation falling on all prices in the country?  The inflation we are experiencing is a systemic problem; but it is a not a problem caused by the supply chain.  It is a problem within the money supply caused by economic policies.  We need an explanation of why we are adopting policies that cause inflation.  

 

Stimulus packages started almost 2 years ago, and yet there was no inflation at that time.  As a mater of fact some prices crashed along with demand.  The JIT/PSR supply chain reacted by scraping ships/laying off railroad crews/cutting back oil production.  Then when things got more back to normal this year, ocean shiping rates rose tenfold, railroads could not train&qualify crews fast enough, and OPEC kept production low, so the supply could not ramp up fast enough, ergo tight supply price hikes caused inflation.

[blue streak 1]

The one inflation item that is obvious is the ocean rates per container.  Those rates have risen by how much ?  2 to 3 times base?

[Euclid]

Murphy Siding

 

 

Euclid

If there are prices rising in the supply chain, it is caused by the overload of the supply chain due to the demand spike. 

 

But it is incorrect to conclude that the inflation that is raising prices across the board is being caused by supply the chain problem.  That makes no sense.  Why would supply chain failures cause systemic inflation falling on all prices in the country?  The inflation we are experiencing is a systemic problem; but it is a not a problem caused by the supply chain.  It is a problem within the money supply caused by economic policies.  We need an explanation of why we are adopting policies that cause inflation.  

 

 

 

 

you mean its not just supply and demand? Too many dollars chasing too few products that makes prices rise?

 

 

It is definitely based on supply and demand.  Beyond that, I believe there are enough definitions to satisfy every conceivable point of view on inflation.  Many of those definitions are contradictory.  One of those definitions is related to the cause being fiscal policy causing an inflated money supply.  It seems that if tax revenues are deemed to be insufficient, money can be created to take the place of tax revenue.  From there, the discussion leads into dangerous territory.

 

There are plenty of definitions that clearly blame the failing supply chain for causing inflation.  From there, it may be construed that all of our current inflation is being caused only by the supply chain.  If inflation is thought to have been caused by specific policy decisions (versus an act of God), those responsible for the decisions will be blamed along with a call for them to change their decisions.  There is blame to be had for most decisions that lead to one of the many definitions of the cause of inflation.

 

Specifically to the subject of the supply chain (and my point in the above quote about it not being the cause of our inflation), one definition of inflation excludes the cost increases in the supply chain by saying this:

 

Inflation is a sustained, generalized increase in the prices of goods and services in an economy. Every increase in price is not inflation, though. When the prices of produce rise in the winter, we don’t call this inflation, because prices will come back down in the spring. The price increase is not a sustained (or permanent) increase. Similarly, if prices increase one time, but don’t continue increasing, we don’t call it inflation. Inflation must be a sustained increase in prices. When the price of gasoline increases at the pump, we don’t call this inflation either, since gasoline is only one good that we consume. Rather, we call this a change in relative prices, since gasoline has become more expensive relative to other goods and services. A generalized increase in prices means the prices of all, or at least most, goods and services go up.

 

However, here is my observation about blaming inflation on the supply chain: 

 

I have heard several accounts of massive price increases in shipping loaded containers as well as shipping companies facing massive hyper-demurrage fines. And we are told that all this massive cost increase will be passed on to the consumer. 

 

Yet there is very little news about consumers complaining about shipping surcharges added to their purchases.  Does this mean that shipping companies are simply absorbing these massive cost increases and not passing them on to the consumers? 

 

If they were passing the massive costs on to the consumers, the consumers would be experienceing massive cost increases on the imported goods coming though the supply chain.  And yet nary a word about consumers being crushed by that exploding cost. 

 

Instead, we constantly hear about the rising cost of fuel oil, energy prices, used vehicles, new vehicles, and food.   And to the extent that this may also include imported Christmas gifts, the few percentage points of increase does not seem nearly adequate to cover the astounding price hikes we hear about shipping container loads and ships standing idle, waiting for weeks to unload at the ports.

[diningcar]

Massive increases? I remember the last half of the 1970's when interest rates were in the teens and prices were very substantially higher than in the 1960's and beginning of the 70's. 

The increases we see today are moderate when viewed in the circumstances which currently prevail. 

[Electroliner 1935]

This may be trivial but it is part of the inflation picture. I am a diet Coke junkie. And a "Depression" baby (born in 1935) so I like to shop sales. Two years ago, I could find diet Coke on "sale" for $0.95/2 ltr bottle. Now the best sale I can find is $1.25/2 ltr. Oh woe is me. And when it is not on sale, it's over $1.80. Forget about the little cans, I can't just drink one.

[Convicted One]

Murphy Siding

 

 

Convicted One

 

 

So then, this must be the rare occasion where  you accept the ol' "he started it" alibi?   

 

 

 

 

I can't comment as I'm not even sure what you are trying to imply.

 

 

 

 

Aren't you the one who always chides members here who try to alibi their actions as being  necessitated by perceived slights performed by others?  I'm pretty sure I have seen you try to reprimand  members here, over  finger pointing.  

[Convicted One]

BaltACD

So - you are a juggler - how many objects can you keep in the air at one time and keep them all in the air on a continuing basis, before you wife dies BECAUSE you couldn't keep them all in the air.  What happens when someone throws more objects into your juggling routine?

The point is Balt, the parties listed made willing decisions to address the underlying problem by holding back in the performance of their portion of the work.

That's fact, not supposition. They elected the options that they did, because it best suited their immediate set of circumstances and economic priorities better than other options that might have been available to them.

You may not personally  like the spin,  and I'm fine with that. But claiming  as you did that the involved entities made no such decisions, is  false.  UP did obstruct bringing more containers inland..it's a fact.  (etc etc)

Now, their decisions were likely weighted upon any alternative choices being unacceptable to them  over economic aspects....but that is what it is...they  made decisions that fed into the current state of affairs.  it happens.

[BaltACD]

Convicted One

 

BaltACD

So - you are a juggler - how many objects can you keep in the air at one time and keep them all in the air on a continuing basis, before you wife dies BECAUSE you couldn't keep them all in the air.  What happens when someone throws more objects into your juggling routine? 

The point is Balt, the parties listed made willing decisions to address the underlying problem by holding back in the performance of their portion of the work.

That's fact, not supposition. They elected the options that they did, because it best suited their immediate set of circumstances and economic priorities better than other options that might have been available to them.

You may not personally  like the spin,  and I'm fine with that. But claiming  as you did that the involved entities made no such decisions, is  false.  UP did obstruct bringing more containers inland..it's a fact.  (etc etc)

Now, their decisions were likely weighted upon any alternative choices being unacceptable to them  over economic aspects....but that is what it is...they  made decisions that fed into the current state of affairs.  it happens.

Your decisions would have the worlds transportation networks gridlocked and stopped.  A stopped network does no one any good.  You FAIL Dispatching 101.

 

[Murphy Siding]

Convicted One

 

 

Murphy Siding

 

 

Convicted One

 

 

So then, this must be the rare occasion where  you accept the ol' "he started it" alibi?   

 

 

 

 

I can't comment as I'm not even sure what you are trying to imply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aren't you the one who always chides members here who try to alibi their actions as being  necessitated by perceived slights performed by others?  I'm pretty sure I have seen you try to reprimand  members here, over  finger pointing.  

 

No. I think you're thinking of someone else, but I don't really know who.

[greyhounds]

I’d be greatly surprised if the FTC has any in depth knowledge of supply chains.  They’re government bureaucrats looking for something to do. This makes them appear to be “Doing Something” so they can “Make a Difference.”  They’re like flies, they eat …. and bother people.

 

None the less, here’s a sample report.

 

Dear FTC,

 

This distribution center suffered supply chain disruptions due to:

 

 

1)      Truck is late arriving. Driver said he was delayed by portable scale and the resultant traffic back up. He ran out of hours five miles from here. Says he will be here as soon as he can tomorrow.

 

2)      Order of toothpaste arrived one case short. Supplier says they’ll make it up on the next order.

 

3)      Forklift operator called in sick.

 

4)      Substitute operator drove forklift off the side of the loading dock. He was taken to a hospital by ambulance. Forklift is out of service.

 

5)      Yard spotter had flat tire on inside dual

 

6)      Some cans of water chestnuts imported from China began exploding. (This one actually happened.)

 

7)      We found a dead rat in the warehouse. Corporate “Go Team” en route by air. (This one also happened.)

 

8)      It snowed. A lot.

 

9)      Our computer guy was called to National Guard duty.

 

10)   OSHA person showed up and demanded full report on the forklift accident.

 

11)   I had to waste time making this report.

 

That’s it for this morning. I’m going to lunch now. I’ll let you know what happens this afternoon.