By now, everyone understands rising beef prices are a never-ending story. Fewer consumers complain about seafood prices. That may change as sticker shock hits the fish counter.

 

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that fish and seafood prices increased by 3.89 percent so far in the first quarter of 2026 compared to prices in 2025. During the same period, the overall inflation rate was 1.19 percent. Of course, that was small potatoes compared to the price of beef, which surged 13 percent amid strong demand and tight supplies.

 

For the rest of this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture expects seafood prices to rise faster than the historical average of 4.60 percent per year. For as long as I can remember, seafood in the U.S. has been a luxury item that, year after year, has climbed in price. Prices for fresh fish and seafood are 133.51 percent higher in 2026 than in 1997. In 2024, seafood had the highest average retail price among protein sources, surpassing beef and veal.

 

Beef, on the other hand, remained low and within the means of most Americans until recent years. Part of the price difference is attributable to growing demand for seafood in the U.S., one of the world's largest seafood markets. However, 90 percent of the seafood consumed is imported from other countries.

 

It was not until I began traveling the world in my teens that I realized that, in many countries, seafood was both cheap and plentiful. China, Indonesia, and Vietnam are the top suppliers of our fish, and all of them have been slapped with high tariffs thanks to Donald Trump. But don't just blame Donald Trump for the rising prices.

 

In recent years, consumers worldwide have begun paying more for fish. Climate change, despite deniers, has had a profound impact on the world's oceans. Rising temperatures and acidification are impacting the distribution and abundance of many underwater species. Just look at the Gulf of Maine as an example. The warmer water has led to a decline in the lobster population to the point where I paid $49 for a lobster roll last weekend in Martha's Vineyard.

 

Over the last six years, Maine's lobster catch has declined from 121 million pounds to 79 million. This drop reflects a broader regional shift, as the Gulf of Maine has been leading the oceans in warming driven by climate change. As a result, the codfish industry has been decimated, while shrimping has gone nowhere as marine life fled to cooler waters. Similarly, salmon populations in the Pacific Ocean are experiencing the same trend.

 

On a trip to visit relatives in Norway a few years ago, I also learned that many species are affected by pollutants such as plastics, pesticides, and industrial waste. Thanks to ocean currents, much of the world's ocean trash is winding up in the Scandinavian region. This has led to increasing regulation and certification as governments try to reverse this trend. The costs are passed on to consumers through higher prices and a smaller supply of fish.

 

Beyond production, the costs of catching fish are steep: harvesting is more labor-intensive, product spoilage occurs faster, and loss rates are higher at every stage from ocean to plate.

 

A pound of ground beef might cost $6.75 per pound, but a comparable portion of fresh salmon or cod will run you anywhere from $8 to $14 per pound. A whole chicken is even cheaper, about $2 a pound. The difference between catching fish and raising cattle, pigs, and chickens is that ranchers and farmers use a controlled environment to optimize feed, breeding, and growth timelines. Wild-caught fishing offers none of the above.

 

Commercial boats depart with a fully paid crew, fuel accounting for 5-10 percent of their earnings, ice, and refrigeration units, and face increasingly uncertain weather, shifting fish populations, regulations, and seasonal closures. There is no guarantee of a full catch, whereas a rancher can be certain of how many pounds of beef he will produce in a month.

 

At the supermarket, beef and chicken have much longer shelf lives as well. Fresh seafood is one of the most perishable items on a grocer's shelves. Anywhere from 8 to 20 percent of seafood is spoiled before it reaches consumers (the shrink rate). Supermarkets know this and mark up their fish to account for that spillage rate. Frozen seafood has a near-zero shrink rate, which is why it is much cheaper than fresh fish.

 

And keeping fish cold is expensive. Most commercial fishing takes place far from supermarkets. Many products, such as wild salmon, Atlantic cod, and imported shrimp, may travel thousands of miles by boat, truck, and air before hitting your local grocery shelf. At every step in the chain, keeping fish cold requires energy, specialized equipment, and speed. Unlike beef, which spoils more slowly, fish spoils quickly if it is not handled precisely.

 

Another difference between fish and a steer is that you get a greater yield from the beef carcass. About 63 percent of its live weight is boneless beef. A whole fish yields far less. No more than 30-50 percent of the fish is edible. If demand for wild-caught fish picks up, you can't just catch more. Harvests are constrained by quotas, seasonal availability, and the sheer biological limits of fish populations.

 

It is the reason aquaculture has exploded worldwide, with fish farms popping up everywhere. Today, roughly half of all seafood consumed globally is farmed fish. Fish farms can scale up like livestock if demand rises. That's why tilapia and catfish, for example, are much cheaper than wild salmon, cod, and shrimp. 

 

When it comes down to it, you may have noticed that not all fish are expensive. Canned tuna is practically a loss leader, with cans going for a dollar or less. 

 

The price differential between fish and meat is really a gap between industrialized livestock production and wild-caught fresh seafood. The more you consume farmed fish that is frozen for transport or canned, the cheaper it becomes.

 

Airlines and passengers alike are buffeted by everything from weather to war. Long lines at the security gates, cancelled or delayed flights, war, weather, and the stock market have hurt both commercial carriers and their human cargoes.

 

March had not been good for either airline or its passengers. More than 12,500 U.S. flights were delayed by storms in some cases on. Daily basis as storms buffeted the East Coast and other locales. American Airlines, Southwest, and Delta delayed or canceled 45 percent of flights in a recent week. This is nothing out of the ordinary. Severe weather this winter has become just another liability for both carriers and passengers.

 

As the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran began, conflict forced the cancellation of more than 52,000 flights to and from the Middle East. Since then, airlines that once relied on flying over Iran and other Gulf states must find alternative routes to their destinations. Geopolitical strife seems to be cropping up wherever you look (or fly over). What was once an efficient and finely tuned worldwide aviation travel network is now at risk of becoming a patchwork of fragmenting connections and workarounds.

 

As a result, not only are airplanes burning more fuel since they are forced to travel longer distances, but flights are getting longer and longer to get from point A to point B. Not only does this eat into carriers' profitability, but it also adds to the woes of your typical passengers. The price of flights is rising along with oil, making it harder to travel long distances, even if one is lucky enough to catch a flight.

 

Geopolitical conflicts have become a nightmare for travelers. Thousands have been stranded in the Middle East, and before that by the Venezuela/U.S. raids, and let's not forget the past four years of ongoing conflict between the Russia and Ukraine war.

 

Adding insult to injury, depending upon the airport, air travelers were encountering long airport security lines, some of which snaked out to the sidewalks surrounding the airport. Many major airports were experiencing nearly 3 hours in TSA lines, causing massive delays and missed flights during peak hours. Delays of at least 1 hour were reported in Atlanta, New Orleans, Charlotte, and Houston.

 

The culprit was the partial federal shutdown of Homeland Security funding, which had led to staffing difficulties at the Transportation Security Administration. Security personnel, until this week, had not received a paycheck for weeks. The U.S. Senate is still squabbling over funding.

 

The president sent his ICE agents to help but reports were that they were simply making matters worse. Finally, Trump ordered the head of Homeland Security to find the money and pay the TSA workers. He did. Readers might wonder why Trump had not simply done that in the first place. 

 

Like consumers, airlines are also grappling with higher energy prices. A sharp spike in jet fuel costs have decimated profits. Since the start of the war, the global average price of jet fuel has soared 58 percent, based on International Air Transport Association data. Since then, it has almost doubled. Fuel accounts for 20-25 percent of airline operating costs, and average prices have risen from $2.50 before the crisis to $4.57 per gallon now. Although some airlines hedge, many do not, and hedging often covers only part of their fuel needs.

 

Advance purchase fares more than doubled for transcontinental flights in the first week of the war. Fares to the Caribbean jumped 58 percent and 43 percent to Florida. Several airlines, mostly in the Asia-Pacific region, have either increased fares or announced fuel surcharges. Air India, for example, tacked on a $50 ticket charge for all flights to Europe, North America, and Australia. Cathay Pacific doubled fuel surcharges starting March 18.

 

U.S. airlines on domestic flights are prohibited from levying a separate fuel surcharge. Instead, they include fuel costs in the overall ticket price. Flyers can expect ticket prices to increase this summer unless oil prices drop back to pre-war levels in the next week or so. In the meantime, expect premium add-ons like seat upgrades, extra legroom seats, checked bags, or priority boarding to be adjusted upward.

 

Airline stocks have dropped sharply since the Iran war, driven by higher fuel costs and flight disruptions. U.S. airlines have generally underperformed the market this year, reflecting persistent concerns about weaker demand and limited pricing power. The industry also faces elevated labor costs and ongoing pilot shortages.

 

However, in recent days, some brave-hearted traders have been buying the dip in this area. Airline management says revenues are still increasing in both international and domestic travel, despite the challenges they face. Delta Airlines, American Airlines, and United Airlines all raised their revenue outlooks for the year. Consumer demand is still robust, they say, despite the long lines, added expense, and frustration.

 

Some airlines are now warning that they will be cutting back flights on less travelled and therefore less profitable routes. Analysts are warning that the higher oil prices climb and the longer they remain elevated, the greater the risk that flyers will pull back, and with them, the airlines' stock prices.

 

Diesel fuel is now above $5 per gallon. You might think that doesn't matter to you, but that would be an erroneous and costly assumption. That's because diesel fuels the main engine of our economy, commercial transportation.

 

If you think gas prices are soaring due to Donald Trump's invasion of Iran, consider diesel. Diesel is rising faster because its price reacts more quickly and sharply to global shipping risks. Diesel supply was already tight before the war because winter increased demand for heating oil, which is nearly identical to diesel.

 

Almost 70 percent of all goods moving across the U.S. travel by freight. Trains and trucks are the most common methods of transportation. Anything powered by diesel engines, which provide more useful energy per unit of volume, is subject to immediate price increases. That means most construction, farming, boats, barges, buses, and military vehicles, as well as equipment, are diesel-powered. In 2023, Diesel fuel accounts for 23 percent of total energy consumption in the U.S. transportation sector and 6 percent of total primary consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Administration.

 

The rising costs of diesel are jacking up the operating costs of major companies as you read this. In a short time, those costs will be passed on to consumers, affecting everything from retail goods and groceries to construction costs and commodities. FedEx and UPS are already raising prices.

 

Let me give you a taste of what's to come. The Producer Price Index for February 2026, announced mid-week, rose 0.7 percent — twice the 0.3 percent economists expected. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said 30 percent of the increase in processed goods was due to a 13.9 percent rise in diesel fuel. That was in February, before the war started!

 

Iran understands that keeping the Straits of Hormuz closed to the U.S. and its allies drives up shipping risks and, consequently, oil prices. This dynamic is a key reason oil prices remain elevated.

 

This week, Donald Trump's demand that America's allies work with him to create an international convoy of warships to perform escort duty through the straits was met with silence. Oil prices rose again as his request was ignored and/or simply rejected. Why not do it ourselves?

 

The naval experts say it is too dangerous. Swarms of Iranian drones would overwhelm the vessel's defenses. My own opinion is that the U.S. simply does not have the ships to perform both security and escort duties simultaneously, and the Iranians know that. I suggest readers read my February column, "What is gunboat diplomacy without boats?" on the sad shape of shipping in the U.S., for further understanding of that issue.

 

On Wednesday, the president announced he would temporarily waive the long-standing Jones Act, which requires that goods be transported between U.S. ports by U.S. vessels. With fewer than 100 Jones Act-compliant vessels, the hope is that the decision would enable the U.S. to move fuel more easily.

 

The temporary suspension (for 60 days) of this requirement would allow non-U.S. international tankers to carry fuel, natural gas, fertilizer, and other goods to the U.S. Given that there are fewer than 100 Jones Act-compliant vessels, the hope is that the decision would help the U.S. move fuel more efficiently. But wait, you might ask, isn't the U.S. self-sufficient in energy?

 

Yes and no. While the U.S. produces enough energy, we can't fully use it because our refineries are designed for heavier Middle Eastern crude, not the lighter shale oil we extract. Moving fuel helps, but it doesn't solve the refining mismatch.

 

Nonetheless, every little bit helps, I guess, but it won't fix diesel prices, nor will it roll back the across-the-board price increases I expect in the weeks ahead. I suggest Americans batten down the hatches because the twin storms of higher inflation and a slowing economy could be just around the corner.

 

The Fed is on hold. Iran is not. Oil regains highs, despite Trump's efforts. Markets test a critical support level. Read no further, unless you want the gory details.

 

My first downside target has been met. The S&P 500 Index has fallen to the 200-Day Moving Average (DMA). That is the level that has historically separated the bulls from the bears. Below it, we have problems. Above it, the sky's the limit. That's simple enough, I guess, but the question on your mind right now is what happens next?

 

That 200 DMA, while important, is not an exact science. More often than not, the market overshoots that line in the sand just to freak out the most investors. I am thinking that overall, we should pull back further, maybe closer to 10 percent over time rather than the 15 percent some bears are predicting.

 

As for when this conflict in the Middle East will end, I don't know. You could ask the president, since he has said that he will "have a feeling" when enough is enough and the war is over. When that occurs, the markets will rally. The bounce should be breathtaking, and if you are not invested, you will miss it. There won't be an opportunity to chase.

 

There is one caveat to that advice. If you are lucky enough to know someone in the inner circle or have paid (donated) enough to the right people, then you will be given advanced notice. Giving friends, relatives, and donors advance notice has become a standard practice within government over the last year.

 

I am not the only one with a foggy crystal ball. The Federal Reserve Bank has no idea what is in store for the economy or the financial markets either. They met this week but decided to do nothing but wring their hands. Chairman Jerome Powell (the Fed's lame-duck who isn't) said they would be watching and waiting for the next six weeks (the next FOMC meeting) until they see how this Middle Eastern conflict plays out. He intimated that the longer the war lasts, the more difficult the Fed's job becomes.

 

Higher-for-longer energy prices mean inflation strengthens as growth slows. The Fed has raised its inflation forecast for the year, but FOMC members still expect the economy to grow. Unemployment appears balanced. Since the immigration crackdown, job openings and job seekers are nearly zero, creating an unusual equilibrium.

 

On the inflation front, the Producer Price Index for February rose over twice as fast as expected, climbing 0.7 percent from January's 0.6 percent. This increase more than doubled most economists' forecasts, though not mine. About 30 percent of the gain was from higher diesel fuel prices. Read my column on diesel fuel this week. I expected this increase and anticipate that the next inflation numbers will be even higher.

 

The era of markets anticipating future rate cuts has ended, replaced by, at best, no change, and at worst, rate hikes if inflation accelerates. That shifts the narrative and market dynamics.

 

Precious metals and metals overall are a case in point. The sector has responded to the fear of higher interest rates by dropping precipitously. The hot money has bailed out and moved into speculating on energy and the U.S. dollar. I see further downside in all metals and a period of consolidation as interest rates decimate the asset class.

 

A series of measures — including using Strategic Petroleum Reserves, lifting Russian oil sanctions, and removing U.S. regulatory restrictions (The Jones Act) — to boost global liquidity appear to have slowed energy price gains.

 

Given that I am not a war correspondent, nor do I pretend to be, unlike so many talking heads in the financial media, all I can say about the conflict in the Middle East is that it has spread. Significant strikes on gas fields and oil refineries are investors' worst nightmares. That kind of escalation is a significant threat to global growth.

 

At the same time, the narrative has changed. The administration's assurances that we will kick Iran's butt, oil prices will fall, and on to the next victory are beginning to fall flat. Missile and drone strikes have taken precedence over words and presidential posts, with every new explosion sending oil prices higher and stocks lower.

 

Some traders are keying off the price of West Texas Intermediate oil (WTI) to signal which way stocks will go. Above WTI $97.37 a barrel, stocks fall further, while below WTI $92.62 markets rally. That is a wide range.  In between, equity markets are in a chop fest. The VIX (volatility index) indicates the same thing. It is at 25 right now. Below 19, the VIX signals all clear, but above 30, look out below! In between, we have the same chop fest as the oil price indicates. I warned readers to expect volatility, and we have it in spades. It will get worse before it gets better.

 

In keeping with the administration's return to its own brand of 16th-century mercantilism, could the next colony they seek be Cuba? It appears to be a strong bet, but for what purpose?

 

Given the actions and words of our government officials, the next country, or in this case, island nation, it seeks to conquer lies 90 miles from Key West. Cuba sits at the intersection between the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Historically, the U.S. considered it a natural barrier controlling vital sea lanes and a dominant landmass that protected or threatened the southern U.S. coast.

 

It may be that its long-term strategic military and economic value remains viable, but the country's economy is in a mess. The Economist, in a recent article, indicated that the Cuban economy was on the verge of collapse. Aside from rum, cigars, and a little tourism, Cuba suffers from decades of economic mismanagement, a lack of structural reforms, and mass migration.

 

Inflation is at 15 percent, the peso is tumbling, tropical diseases are surging, and in cities like Havana, the municipal waste system has ground to a halt. Blackouts are increasingly common. Hospitals are canceling surgeries, and public transportation is scarce. It wasn't always that way.

 

Originally a Spanish colony, Cuba in the 1800s fell under the Monroe Doctrine after Spain formally renounced its claim to Cuba in the Treaty of Paris in 1898, and was largely occupied by the U.S. By then, massive amounts of American capital had already been invested in the country. Beyond a thriving sugar trade, American interests controlled significant percentages of the island's railroads, public utilities, mining, and tobacco. The country essentially became a U.S. protectorate in 1903.

 

The Communist takeover of Cuba and the nationalization of American property in 1959 soured U.S./Cuban relations to the present day. Although there have been several false starts and attempts at reconciliation through the decades, the U.S. doctrine of isolation and embargo has continued to the present day. That policy has brought the Cuban economy to its knees today.

 

Trump's decision to choke off Venezuela's oil to Cuba, which can only meet 40 percent of its own energy demands, was a body blow. The oil crisis hammered the regime's already doomed economic model. In a rare admission of crisis, President Miguel Diaz-Canel scrambled to implement an urgent economic overhaul. The Castro brothers must have spun in their graves as Diaz-Canel called for loosening the state grip, courting foreign investors, and shrinking government control.

 

As the mood in this communist nation soured, the state's iron grip on the economy had already begun to loosen. In 2021, the government allowed the creation of hundreds of small businesses in the private sector with fewer than 100 employees. As such, there are now 11,000 small and medium-sized independent businesses on the island. Just recently, another series of reforms allowed private ownership of a wide range of industries, from food production to construction and beyond.

 

In the case of Cuba, I believe Trump would rather have a deal that would make the island economically dependent on the U.S. Unlike the war in Iran or the late-night raid in Venezuela, I am not looking for an abrupt change nor the sudden overthrow of all state control. Times have changed. Most so-called capitalist economies have evolved into a new model of state capitalism, whether we are talking about China or the U.S.I believe the approach will be different. It would be more of a bailout or bankruptcy reorganization than a regime change.

 

President Trump has used the term "friendly takeover" more than once in talking about Cuba. His Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a longtime Cuba hawk, along with a Florida-based Cuban business community, has been reaching out to the private sector. I have noticed that rather than threaten regime change in the name of democracy or an end to communism, the administration is focusing on commercial, economic, and financial engagement.

 

From the president's point of view, the need for humanitarian assistance is high, and what better way to deliver it than through the private sector? Exactly how a friendly takeover would be accomplished is a question for the market. The island was certainly part of the discussions Trump had with Latin American leaders at a March 7 summit at the Doral Golf Club.

 

For a successful takeover, Cuba's private sector will need the skills and capital of American business, particularly the banking sector. It appears the present government would be amenable to such an approach. It also helps that they know if a carrot doesn't work, Donald Trump is more than ready to use a Big Stick.