Effective Saturday morning, the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board implemented an interrupter clause, leading to a 6.7-cent increase in regular self-serve gasoline prices to 168.7 cents per litre, and a 8.9-cent rise in diesel to 220 cents per litre. This intervention, the fourth this month, was prompted by significant shifts in petroleum product pricing, driven in part by a nearly 40% surge in global oil prices attributed to escalating Middle Eastern conflicts. These new prices represent a notable jump compared to the same period last year, when gasoline and diesel were priced at 155.3 cents and 179.1 cents per litre, respectively.
Read More
The notion that the United States, as a nation, truly benefits from high oil prices is a point that sparks considerable debate, and frankly, a fair amount of confusion. When someone in a position of power suggests that elevated oil prices are a positive for the country, it’s natural to question who exactly is doing the benefiting. The immediate thought for many is that it’s not the average citizen, the working parent struggling to make ends meet, or the small business owner grappling with increased operational costs. Instead, the spotlight often turns to those who own oil companies, their shareholders, and the larger energy sector, whose profits tend to swell when the price per barrel climbs.… Continue reading
Traditional contracting mechanisms are in place that allow for the pass-through of fuel price fluctuations, both increases and decreases, directly to customers. Consequently, these price increases will ultimately be borne by the company’s customers and then by the end consumers.
Read More
The Trump administration has declared its inability to comply with a court order mandating the commencement of tariff refunds. This statement comes after a period where these tariffs, deemed illegal by the courts, were collected, amassing significant sums that are now expected to be returned to those who paid them. The rationale provided for this non-compliance centers on the assertion that the funds are no longer accessible, having been “funneled into 8-day-old businesses” or otherwise dispersed in a manner that prevents their retrieval for refund purposes. This situation has ignited considerable frustration, with many expressing outrage over what they perceive as gross mismanagement and deliberate evasion of legal obligations.… Continue reading
A significant judicial decision has directed the government to commence refunding over $130 billion in tariffs, a move that has sparked considerable discussion about who will ultimately benefit from this substantial sum. It’s important to understand the mechanics of how these tariffs were applied and why this refund is now being ordered. Essentially, when tariffs were imposed on imported goods, the cost was almost universally passed on to consumers by corporations. These companies, operating under the principle of pricing according to what the market will bear, maintained these higher prices even after the initial tariff imposition.
Consequently, the refund of these tariffs primarily benefits the corporations.… Continue reading
In a significant ruling for importers, a federal judge in New York has determined that companies are entitled to refunds for tariffs previously struck down by the Supreme Court. The judge’s decision clarifies that all importers of record will benefit from the Supreme Court’s finding that President Trump’s sweeping import taxes were unconstitutional. This ruling could result in billions of dollars in refunds, and while the government is expected to appeal, the process for recalculating duties and issuing refunds has now begun.
Read More
Despite Donald Trump’s consistent rejection of economic analyses, evidence accumulated over the course of his second term has definitively shown that American consumers are bearing the brunt of his trade tariffs. Nearly a year after the tariffs were implemented, multiple studies, including one by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Columbia University, found that approximately 90% of the economic burden fell on domestic firms and consumers, rather than foreign entities. This overwhelming consensus among economists and researchers has been met with dismissal from the White House, with a top advisor even suggesting disciplinary action for the authors of a critical Federal Reserve study.
Read More
The World Bank forecasts a sluggish 2.7% global economic growth in 2019, mirroring the performance of 2019 and representing a significant weakening. This rate, while manageable, is insufficient to elevate living standards globally. The projection reflects concerns over factors such as potential US tariffs, which could severely impact international trade and overall economic health. This subdued growth highlights the fragility of the current economic climate.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood