Apparently, letter writer Mark Renz doesn’t buy eggs very often (“Lower food prices,” Jan. 7). This isn’t the first time that eggs have been priced at $6 a carton at Jewel. I remember shopping for Easter a few years back and finding only one carton left at my local Jewel. It was still there because a couple of the eggs were broken. The price on the shelf was $8 per carton. Lucky for me, I knew how to deal with the situation, having learned from my grandmother who raised a big family during the Great Depression. That Easter, we skipped the deviled eggs, and I used flax seeds in my baking.
Prices for eggs dropped dramatically after several months only to begin rising again recently. I was able to find eggs (organic, outdoor access) for $4 a carton before Christmas, but by New Year’s, eggs were again hard to find. Why is that? Eggs come from chickens, which are birds, so when we have bird flu outbreaks, the price of eggs goes up. It is a supply and demand thing.
Most birds fly, especially wild birds. They can fly over chicken coops and turkey farms. Their droppings can infect livestock. When these birds get infected, they have to be destroyed. No laying hens means a shortage of eggs. It takes some time for ranchers to restore their flocks. When they do, prices will go down gradually because ranchers have a lot of losses to cover. Prices will come down but will probably never return to the days of $2 a carton.
Prices for eggs may come down in February because the demand for them is lower than during the holidays.
It is not some conspiracy. The birds don’t care who is president.
— Janice Cody, Chicago
Effects of invisible forces
Some letter writers are applauding Donald Trump’s return to the White House, stating reasons why they consider this to be a good thing. Example: It means the price of eggs will fall. Wrong. Trump doesn’t lay eggs. Hens do.
What better testament to the misplaced understanding of economics (a dreaded word to most people) as a basic force in our daily lives. The failure of our schools to teach economics alongside political science, as they affect our entire lives, keeps the vast majority of us ignorant of how our lives are affected by these largely invisible forces.
Like the subject of economics, political science also falls in the category of dreary subjects among average Americans, mainly because they fail to see the connection between these two categories of concern and how our everyday lives may be affected by their influence. While the workings thereof are abstract, their impact is ultimately tangible, sometimes in monetarily painful ways.
Whereas the subject is unappetizing, abstract and dull, in defense of personal budgeting, we would do well to monitor it at the national level because that’s where many of our personal spending decisions are made for us, like it or not. We never get to spend money deducted from our paychecks in advance by our federal and state governments. How else would we fund our military, unemployment compensation, etc., and all the many government bureaus we support for our combined benefit?
Yes, they are abstract in nature, but they are the forces that dictate how we live our daily lives by making money management decisions for us before we even see the money meant for us. The price of eggs is not affected, unless the government buys up more of them than usual for whatever reason, and even then, the price eventually falls back to normal.
Fretting over it simply wastes psychic energy. We all have better things to fret about.
— Ted Z. Manuel, Chicago
Don’t hold your breath
Letter writer Mark Renz can’t wait until the new administration takes over so that food prices will go down. I don’t know if he was being sarcastic or serious, but if Renz really thinks that food prices will magically go down when Donald Trump’s administration takes over, all I can say is I hope he isn’t holding his breath.
— Harold Plucienik, Chicago Heights
Trump’s candor refreshing
Whatever one thinks of incoming President Donald Trump’s politics, his candor is refreshing. It is nice to have a president who has real news conferences, takes all questions, candidly answers the questions and can think on his feet without handlers.
— Jean DuBois, Naperville
Panama Canal bluster
Donald Trump’s bluster about retaking control of the Panama Canal harks to the 1970s, when opposition to turning over the canal to Panama was crystalized by Ronald Reagan and then-Sen. S.I. Hayakawa.
It was Reagan who proclaimed that “we bought it, we paid for it, it’s ours and we’re going to keep it,” and Hayakawa stated that we should keep the canal because “we stole it fair and square.”
In spite of opposition to the Panama Canal treaties, they were ratified, affirming Panama’s sovereignty and improved U.S. relations with Latin America.
If Trump were to carry through with his threat to violate the treaty and seize the canal, there would undoubtedly be protests in the canal zone and thousands of American troops, at heavy financial cost, would be required to restore order. Security would also be problematic since it would be relatively easy to sabotage the canal and bring shipping to a standstill, which would disrupt supply chains and cause havoc to our economy.
— Larry Vigon, Chicago
Preview of what’s to come
Seize the Panama Canal? Change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America? Annex Greenland? Make Canada the 51st state?
Donald Trump has not yet been inaugurated, but the chaos has begun.
— Gerald Lasin, Deerfield
Suggestion for Canada
Instead of Canada joining the U.S., how about the Northern states join Canada?
— Joanne Zolomij, Evanston
Trump’s sour grapes
A letter writer commented on President Joe Biden’s veto of the federal judgeships bill, likening it to sour grapes and playground antics (“Biden’s sour grapes,” Jan. 6). That is the person’s opinion, but compare that with then-President Donald Trump’s incitement of an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, that led to a loss of life, based on what were proved to be false claims of significant voter fraud.
I will spare the readers another tired analogy.
— Rick Magill, Naperville
Editor’s note: We’d like to hear from you about your hopes for the new year — whether for our country, our state, your community or your family. Submit a letter of no more than 400 words to letters@chicagotribune.com. Be sure to include your full name and city/town.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.