Article fails to note that the 2010s saw abnormally high per capita wine consumption, and even after the 20% decline in the 2020s to date, per capita consumption is still more than 50% above historical baseline. This isn't the death of a once stable industry, this is a predictable bursting of an obvious bubble.
The decrease in consumption predates the current trade issues. Peak domestic wine consumption was in 2021 and has been falling rapidly ever since. There hasn't been a decrease in demand of this magnitude or duration since the 80s. Despite several years of declining consumption, per capita consumption remains over 50 percent above historical baseline. Combined with demographic changes that will decrease avid wine consumers as a fraction of the population, it's quite clear that the 2010s bubble was the short term abnormality.
Higher demand incentivizes more production, increasing supply which drives prices down. Demand increases only drive up prices if supply is constrained.
Very likely wine demand was not going up, and price increases were instead due to increasing costs and inflation.
Wine has the advantage that it keeps really well, and in some cases improves (becomes more valuable with age.)
So when demand softens it may be advantageous to hold back the excess rather than lower prices. Yes, there are cash flow issues when this approach gets out of hand, but financial interests can cover a lot of that as well.
Eh, not really true for the cheap end of the market. A lot of wine sold in supermarkets, for example, is meant to be consumed a couple of years after bottling, tops. And storage can be a significant problem.
Since 2001 the US has spent 29.7 Trillion on entitlements excluding social security vs 18 Trillion of military spending.
Of course the entitlements are useful spending - these are things people need and benefit from. Had these dollars not been spent by the US government, they would have been spent directly by the taxpayers for the same goods and services. While some money may have been saved if this spending were private, it probably wouldn't change the total economic impact by much.
On the other hand we have nothing to show for the $18 trillion burned on wars that went horrifically. If we'd put that money into useful investments such that it paid interest and stopped our defense spending, we would be running a $300 billion per year surplus right now with no cuts to any other government services, to say nothing of the potential economic advantages if the wars had just never happened.
And don't get me started on the $10 trillion lost to the Bush tax cuts and their extensions.
> 29.7 Trillion on entitlements excluding social security
Convenient to exclude SS for ... no reason other than it makes your numbers look better because its a vast majority of entitlement spending so it makes your argument look bad.
May I ask you provide numbers including all entitlement spending, which includes SS?
This is what I meant by knowing what the numbers are.
The purpose of my response was that using Friedman's quote was hypocritical when expensive wars are fought and taxes on the wealthy are cut (a point ignored). It's also unclear to what extend the undocumented are a burden on the welfare state in relation to the above. The current party in power, with the exception of Senator Rand Paul, seem remarkably unconcerned with the $40 trillion deficit.
Because the social security surplus was used to fund the treasury instead of being put towards social security. The 1990s budget surplus that became the Bush tax cuts? Yeah that was the money that was supposed to pay for social security.
But certain groups are probably more likely than others to need to worry about having to prove their citizenship. You don't need to make it impossible for people to vote, you just need to create enough friction that some of them won't who otherwise would.
> Ok, but a significant bulge on one side of the planet will slow all sats, giving the false impression of a homegenous trend.
A bulge would not homogenously slow all satellites, each one would be slowed by a different amount depending on its particular path through the bulge. Those that pass through more of the bulge will be slowed to a greater extent than those passing briefly through. Satellites in different orbits tell you where the bulge is, satellites in the same orbit tell you how the bulge is moving.
It's just incredibly dumb to start a war that will tank global petroleum supply chains before stocking back up.
reply