Cranberry overproduction

There seems to be a glut of cranberries and turkeys in the U.S. market – good news for consumers

Now that Thanksgiving is behind us and all of the turkey plus the fixins and accessories (including dessert) have all been consumed and we begin our diets in anticipation of the upcoming eating season, I figured that I would share some interesting nuggets (no pun intended here) that I cam across.

For starters, there seems to be an overabundance of turkeys and cranberries in the market place and the powers that be are not happy about it:

https://www.ien.com/operations/video/20983694/turkey-cranberry-processors-dealing-with-overproduction

From this piece, it seems that the government is being brought in to be the policeman on how much one may produce – otherwise the producer risks having to use the excess for fertilizer.

I guess my question here is: At what point is it appropriate for the government to decide what business one may or may not engage in? Obviously, the government’s job is to enact and enforce laws that protect the civil and property rights of individuals, but is this overreach? Is the government supposed to be picking winners and losers by forcing the market place to conform to it’s perceived appropriate quota? This question has lots of ramifications – especially to us right now in the steel industry where section 232 tariffs are being seriously considered. Yes we need to be protected against bad actors (in this case other countries that are playing games and manipulating the price of steel that they sell – and their currencies), but at what point is it considered going too far? (Putting aside for the moment the question regarding the “Law of unintended consequences” as I noted in my post here: 

http://premiumsteelsales.com/so-whatever-happened-to-section-232/

)

Have a look at this:

http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/d/a/Franklin-D.-Roosevelt

You will see here that anyone earning anything above $200,000 (that would equal approximately $3.5 million in today’s terms) would have that income taxed at 94%. FDR supported this idea based on what he had said in a letter to congress: “Discrepancies between low personal incomes and very high personal incomes should be lessened; and I therefore believe that in time of this grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war, no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.”

Guess what?? When you tax income at close to 100% (in this case it was 94% – that is 94 cents for every dollar earned being basically confiscated) you are discouraging anyone from investing the effort to actually earn that income as it will be taken away from them anyway.

Who gets to decide how much income one should be bringing in?

Here is basically the same story but it is presented in a slightly different way:

https://www.ibj.com/articles/66369-too-many-turkeys-cranberries-should-mean-cheaper-thanksgiving

The producers have asked the FDA for approval to use the excess cranberries for fertilizer – ouch!! 🙁

Also interesting to note that it is very nice and kind of China to keep their poultry ban in place long after the epidemic has passed – just sayin…..

I am starting to get a bit long winded here but I will leave you with this interesting tidbit (which presents us with another important lesson) and hopefully next post we can focus on the drink of choice from Thanksgiving dinner:

https://www.ien.com/supply-chain/article/20982501/what-happens-to-all-of-those-turkey-tails

I guess the expression “necessity is the mother of invention” is still accurate and relevant. Just something to think about when we have an extra “something” that we have seemingly no use for, how that can present itself as a great opportunity.

Keep in touch!

Ben

Ben@premiumsteelsales.com