A few things. First, have you seen this?
"Ghriskey and other analysts noted the PPI data was influenced by a sharp jump in tobacco prices. After taking out the impact of tobacco and also of higher automobile prices the core rate was up only 0.1 percent."
Ok, I'm no PPI expert, therefore I don't know what exactly they mean by "taking out higher auto prices". This *is* the Producer Price Index, so do they mean the prices that parts producers charge to the auto industry for supplying parts for new cars? At any rate, how can just one segment of manufacturing go up that much, and not the others? Surely the US is doing more than manufacturing autos.
But come on, tobacco! Everyone knows the fault for that lies squarely on the greedy State Attorney Generals. Helllo! The money for multi-billion dollar settlements has to come from somewhere, so of course it was passed on to the consumer. Anyone noticed what a pack of Marlboros costs nowdays, by the single package? $4.25. Considering that a couple of months ago they were $3 to $3.25, there's a whole bunch of money going from the smokers pockets, through the tobacco companies, and into the waiting greedy hands of the State governments, who have condoned selling tobacco for decades, because they love to tax it heavily.
Now as to my other point: Just that it wasn't Greenspan's fault that "People" (rich or not) decided to sell THIS Friday. Greenspan is simply aware that the US stock market is grossly overvalued, and so gave advice to banks on protecting themselves. It's like, should we punish the little girl that notices that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, if he indeed is naked? All Greenspan does is give good advice, and people act like he sold their grandma down the river for a barrel of whiskey.
Without the effects of tobacco and also taking out automobiles, the PPI wasn't up squat: 1.2% annual basis. |
