For parents who rely on baby formula—whether by choice or due to medical necessity—the nationwide baby formula shortage has become increasingly difficult to ignore.
Covid lockdowns, combined with a product recall by formula manufacturer Abbott Nutrition has created a very real shortage in a product that is key for proper nutrition in many children.
With the shortage has come the usual half-baked bromides about “evil corporations” and how baby formula companies are supposedly not regulated enough. Throw in a few references to “late-stage capitalism” and you’ll get a good taste of the usual “blame capitalism” narrative that accompanies every bout of shortages or rising prices.
Formula is Heavily Regulated and Subsidized
In reality, federal government intervention in the formula market is rampant. Thanks to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), formula companies are heavily subsidized by voucher programs which mean that the US government is “provid[ing] more than half of the formula that is used in the US.“
Within this voucher programs, funds are funneled to select corporations through programs that grant a formula company “the exclusive right to have its formula provided to WIC participants in the State.” In practice, this means the largest companies with the most lobbyists are able to dominate the subsidized portion of the market. Since the subsidized portion of the market is so huge, that usually means those companies dominate the market overall. This makes it harder for newcomers to break into the market and offer any real competition. This means the marketplace becomes reliant on a small number of large firms.
The anti-competitive nature of federal WIC policy is just one aspect of how little the formula market has to do with anything we might call “the free market.”
Protectionism Prevents Access to Foreign Formula
Another major and important factor is the restriction on foreign imports enforced by federal law.
The US regime overall is very protectionist when it comes to dairy products in general, and formula is certainly no exception. As one pediatric medical journal states flatly “Infant formula in the United States is highly regulated.” This can be seen clearly in protectionist trade law imposed on formula in the guise of protecting consumers.
As noted by Derek Thompson at The Atlantic: “FDA regulation of formula is so stringent that most of the stuff that comes out of Europe is illegal to buy here due to technicalities like labeling requirements.”
These bureaucratic requirements fall under “non-tariff barriers” which in many cases present even greater barriers than tariffs.
But tariff barriers are significant as well. Thompson also notes that
U.S. policy also restricts the importation of formula that does meet FDA requirements. At high volumes, the tax on formula imports can exceed 17 percent. And under President Donald Trump, the U.S. entered into a new North American trade agreement that actively discourages formula imports from our largest trading partner, Canada.
However, those products that jump through all those hoops face further restrictions. The FDA mandates that even qualifying formula manufacturers must wait 90 days before marketing any new formula.
Trade restrictions function to prevent reliable lines of importation of foreign formula. Thanks to that 90-day delay on marketing, foreign suppliers can’t introduce new products to the market quickly, either.
So, if you have adopted children, a double mastectomy, or some other reason for needing formula for your baby, you can thank advocates of tariffs and other trade restrictions for shortages.
Protectionists and their Excuses
Naturally, the baby-formula protectionists have plenty of excuses for why their preferred form of central planning and big-government intervention in the marketplace is “necessary.” They’ll insist that FDA regulations are necessary to protect children—as if European baby formula is not already heavily regulated. European infant mortality also tends to be lower than US infant mortality, so the claim that protectionism is “for the children” is clearly baseless.
These facts, however, don’t prevent Trump-style protectionists from claiming government regulations are good “because China.”
You understand those regulations are there because everything from talcum powder to wood shavings have been found in formula coming from china right?
Secondly, the protectionists are likely to claim that government control of formula—and all other dairy-based imports — are important because they “protects jobs.” What protectionists are really saying is that you and your family must just do without essential goods in order to protect a small number of corporations that dominate the formula marketplace thanks to US regulations.
Protectionism Means Punishing Entrepreneurs
Finally, there is little doubt that if the federal government actually allowed some true degree of freedom in the formula marketplace that entrepreneurs would step in to import formula to meet the need quickly.
This, of course, can’t happen because these entrepreneurs don’t want to be jailed, sued, and otherwise destroyed by federal bureaucrats. After all, protectionism must be enforced by federal police and federal courts, and that means fining and jailing any importers who run afoul of the law. Protectionism is fundamentally about using violence against Americans who try to bring goods to market in ways that the protectionists don’t like.
Once again, the anti-capitalist “fair trade” advocates and advocates of WIC corporatism who caused these shortages will likely escape unscathed. Formula industry lobbyists will deploy and ensure nothing is done to endanger the protection-induced profits at the dominant firms. Welfare-state Leftists will ensure that the federal government continues to subsidize these corporations as well. Rightwing protectionists will continue to insist that foreign goods must be kept out to make America great.
CLICK HERE to watch our live feed that’s now streaming 24/7 on GETTR! Also, be sure to follow Alex Jones and Banned.video on GETTR for breaking news and exclusive information!
Increased testosterone levels can cause Democrats to become more conservative in their political affiliation, a recent experiment analyzing voters in U.S. elections found.
The study – Testosterone Administration Induces A Red Shift in Democrats – was published on November 14th, 2021 by Professor Paul Zak, the Director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University.
“His research has made a substantial impact in explaining the variation in human social behaviors and has been cited by other scholars over 18,000 times placing in the top 0.3% of all scholars,” explains his professional biography.
Zak’s latest findings reveal a link between testosterone levels and political preference through analyzing 136 voting-age males throughout the 2012 election season.
“Our results demonstrate that testosterone induces a “red shift” among weakly-affiliated Democrats,” summarized the paper.
Researchers administered synthetic testosterone or placebo to participants who previously disclosed their political affiliations, allowing researchers to track how the hormone affected participants’ politics.
“When weakly affiliated Democrats received additional testosterone, the strength of their party fell by 12 percent and they reported 45 percent warmer feelings towards Republican candidates for president,” explained the study.
“Before the testosterone treatment, we found that weakly affiliated Democrats had 19 percent higher basal testosterone than those who identified strongly with the party,” the study continues, reiterating the correlation between individuals with lower testoreone having left-wing political beliefs.
While the effects of testosterone waned with individuals who were staunch Democrats or weak Republicans, “our findings provide evidence that neuroactive hormones affect political preferences,” posits the study.
The study comes amidst an ongoing discussion about declining testosterone levels in the U.S. and mainstream media outlets such as The New York Times attacking Fox News host Tucker Carlson for addressing the issue in a recent documentary.
The unearthed link between hormones and political ideology also follows scientists floating “morality pills” as a method to enforce COVID-19 mandate compliance.
Billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Twitter Wednesday called the Democrat Party one of “division & hate” and predicted that they will conduct a “dirty tricks campaign” against him over his recent announcement that he would be voting for the Republican Party in the 2024 election.
In the tweet, Musk explained that he had typically voted for Democrats before because they were kind.
Now, Musk says the party has become one of division, hate, and dirty tricks.
“In the past, I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party. But they have become the party of division and hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican,” Musk wrote.
In the past I voted Democrat, because they were (mostly) the kindness party.
But they have become the party of division & hate, so I can no longer support them and will vote Republican.
Now, watch their dirty tricks campaign against me unfold … 🍿
When Musk was asked about why he was so invested in purchasing Twitter and turning it into a private company, he argued that there was a serious need for a digital town square that is inclusive, politically balanced, and transparent about their algorithms.
“Why is one tweet doing well? Why is another tweet not?” he asked. “Is it the algorithm? Did someone manually intervene? Why are some accounts banned with no recourse apparently?” Musk continued.
Musk said that the current reality was that Twitter has a “very far-left” bias, which could not continue.
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 17, 2022
“I would class myself as a moderate, neither Republican nor Democrat, and in fact I have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, overwhelmingly,” he added.
Musk’s purchase of Twitter is currently on hold, pending an investigation into the levels of fake and spambot accounts on the platform, but confirmed that he was still “committed” to buying it.
Rep. Eric Swalwelll (D-CA) stated on Wednesday that the decision for a mother to abort her child is like deciding which job opportunity to pursue.
“You know, we are talking about a decision that is so personal, and one that families and individuals with their families and their friends make oftentimes at the kitchen table,” Swalwell said.
“It’s one of those few decisions in your life that will require you to consult with your friends and your family,” Swalwell continued. “It’s like deciding what career you’re going to pursue, whether you’re gonna have a family, who you’re going to marry.”
Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell: Deciding to have an abortion is “like deciding what career you’re going to pursue” pic.twitter.com/NKj1O3bo7B
Swalwell was the subject of scorn on social media this week after he implied a church shooter that authorities have described as a Chinese nationalist motivated by anti-Taiwanese sentiment was an agent of the GOP.
“Sorry @housegop that the parishioners hog-tied your boy,” Swalwell tweeted. “#SorryNotSorry.”
“The suspect is a man from China who the FBI has opened a hate crime investigation into because he allegedly targeted the parishioners based on their Taiwanese identity,” journalist Andy Ngo replied to Swalwell. “Given your past personal connections to a Chinese Communist spy, it’s more likely the suspect was ‘your boy.’”
The suspect is a man from China who the FBI has opened a hate crime investigation into because he allegedly targeted the parishioners based on their Taiwanese identity. Given your past personal connections to a Chinese Communist spy, it’s more likely the suspect was “your boy.”