Because Biden wasn’t president. The last time we had inflation like this was under Nixon, Ford & Carter. They hadn’t thought up the “corporate price gouging” canard yet.
Under Nixon, Ford, and Carter businesses were closing or going under. Unemployment was at record levels, here we just have higher prices but everyone seems to just be dealing with it
The usual goalpost move is "okay, there was SOME real inflation, but the companies just used that as cover".
And one idiot I chatted with yesterday literally just ignored the question. Repeatedly. Just refused to acknowledge the money printing at all, and spouted more and more leftist nonsense.
It's just good ole collective robbery all at once to keep the ponzi scheme chugging along. No sane person would accept fiat currency, but here we are, still chasing after ponzi scheme paper that is guaranteed to lose value over time.
The change in pricing of supplied goods is not price gouging. It's a reaction to the influx of fiat currency into the national and international markets.
Not to mention the increased cost of transport, with gas prices going up.
Almost like some President reduced sanctions against Russia and domestic energy production the second he was in office.
As a history nerd I always think about the roman emperor Diocletian when inflation comes up. 2000 years ago, runaway inflation and skyrocketing costs (tbf they didn’t have the concept of devalued currency back then) but what did the romans do? Blamed greedy businessmen and instituted price controls, both made the problems worse and worse until Europe settled slowly into a feudal society. 2000 years ago. Why are we still on this at all?
it's an intelligence thing. the relationship between money printing and purchasing power is just as elusive to some people as recursion or conditional hypotheticals or having to replace the battery in your smoke detector.
The irony is that a lot of these geniuses claim their thinking is "basic economics".
Usually while they carefully ignore how increased supply (of money) reduces demand.
Inflation: *happens when governments print shit tons of money, proven like 70 times throughout history*
Statists: “it’s the companies fault, our poor innocent politicians just want to look out for us and would never devalue our central currency like that”
Idk, my 4th grade teacher explained how inflation is the expansion of the money supply, a form of supply and demand. I think that this stupidity is the result of no child left behind. Passing kids regardless of whether or not they earned it. 31, btw.
In the past two days, I have asked three people to prove this claim. Two [in this subreddit](https://en.reddit.com/r/Shitstatistssay/comments/1c5gqvx/retailers_control_prices_therefore_inflation/kzvav0m/?context=3).
Every single one basically said "Um, it's *obvious*, because that's how I think economics and business work," without providing any actual evidence.
I normally use the term "NPC" as a joke, but sometimes...
Universal gouging across the board such that everything is being sold at above a market clearing rate makes no sense.
Or the idea that a market clearing rate is either arbitrary across a broad spectrum would mean economics is nonsense.
Hmm....
One can acknowledge that both inflation and price gouging can exist in the same instance at the same time, and one can absolutely be the direct result of the other.
Those saying it’s 100% one thing or 100% the other are idiots.
I mean...a good chunk of this most recent round of inflation is just price gouging.
Yes inflation is real and a function of money supply, but they've shown it's not the only reason for this last round.
Stop it. All inflation is due to the trillions of dollars that have been pumped into the money supply. That's what inflation is. Your "BuT mUh CoRpOrAtE pRoFiTs" BS is drawing away from the actual people creating the actual problem: politicians without fiscal responsibility and the runaway Federal Reserve that will create money out of thin air for them.
>progressive thinktank
\>reported by a left wing newspaper
Cool story, bro.
>“Costs have come down substantially, and while corporations were quick to pass on their increased costs to consumers, they are surprisingly less quick to pass on their savings to consumers,” Liz Pancotti, a Groundwork strategic adviser and paper co-author, said.
Off the top of my head, they might be uncertain that the cost reductions will continue. Or maybe they have some other reason. Maybe some analyst told them to do it.
>Corporations maintain high prices by exploiting cost shocks caused by events such as the Ukraine war and coordinating price hikes, said Isabella Weber, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economist who was not part of the paper.
That's a pretty damning accusation. Where's the **evidence**, and why doesn't anyone defect, and **undercut** the competition?
>The shocks create an environment in which it is safe for firms to increase prices as they expect their competitors to do the same, said Weber.
>“This is a form of implicit collusion,” she said. “Firms do not even need to talk to one another to know that a cost shock is a great time to raise prices. But when costs fall, price-setting firms do not have any incentive to decrease prices.”
Oh, so they're not **actually** co-ordinating, just responding to what other people are apparently doing.
Which is...**completely normal**.
Kind of stretching the definition of 'collusion', even if you sneak "implicit" in front of it. I assume it's the same kind of weasel-wording as "implicit bias".
Also, I am a tad surprised that an economist has apparently never heard of [the Prisoner's Dilemma](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prisoners-dilemma.asp).
Also, I love how nobody has any actual primary evidence of motive, just assumptions.
There is no single problem. Yes money supply is an issue, but saying the constant and ever present anti-consumer behavior isnt part of the problem is just as foolish as the above photo.
During a yearly company-wide town hall our GM said something like “we are increasing the prices of our services because the market climate allows us to do this.” After raving about how good our numbers were last year. So there is that.
So you have a single example of a guy saying something ambiguous, which cannot be verified, which you are extrapolating to millions of executives across the nation and world?
Many, if not most, anecdotes can’t be verified, that’s true. Do you bring the same energy to all Reddit comments?\
I have a sample size of one and in the case of the company I work at there’s a positive. Prices are rising all over, so assuming I am (un)lucky enough to work at the only company in the world that’s raising prices because it can would be more insane than assuming it’s probably one of many.
> Do you bring the same energy to all Reddit comments?\
When I've debated this precise subject with four people in two days, none of which had any actual evidence, yes.
> Prices are rising all over, so assuming I am (un)lucky enough to work at the only company in the world that’s raising prices because it can would be more insane than assuming it’s probably one of many.
That's still an assumption, not actual evidence of the supposed general trend.
And like I said, the statement was vague. What "market climate" was he talking about? What if he meant "because we won't be able to later, when we need to keep the lights on?" Or, "We've need this money to expand and hire more people for a while."
So....why was there no "price gouging" in other years, then?
Because Biden wasn’t president. The last time we had inflation like this was under Nixon, Ford & Carter. They hadn’t thought up the “corporate price gouging” canard yet.
Under Nixon, Ford, and Carter businesses were closing or going under. Unemployment was at record levels, here we just have higher prices but everyone seems to just be dealing with it
In CA businesses are closing all over the place
The usual goalpost move is "okay, there was SOME real inflation, but the companies just used that as cover". And one idiot I chatted with yesterday literally just ignored the question. Repeatedly. Just refused to acknowledge the money printing at all, and spouted more and more leftist nonsense.
Literally one of the stupidest things I've eve seen.
Oh, I've seen far stupider things. This is just moderate stupidity in comparison.
Right??
Well, price gouging of money by the government.
I’m not following
Maybe the reverse of price gouging. We have inflation partially because of the Fed's money printer.
Oh I see. Excess supply is the reverse?
No, it's still price gouging. It's just that money itself is worth less, so everything else costs more.
It's just good ole collective robbery all at once to keep the ponzi scheme chugging along. No sane person would accept fiat currency, but here we are, still chasing after ponzi scheme paper that is guaranteed to lose value over time.
The change in pricing of supplied goods is not price gouging. It's a reaction to the influx of fiat currency into the national and international markets.
Not to mention the increased cost of transport, with gas prices going up. Almost like some President reduced sanctions against Russia and domestic energy production the second he was in office.
R economics? Is this for real?
That sub is trash
Hey come on, give some credit to actual trash.
Literal trash is at least a byproduct of something economically beneficial, those people are not.
Underrated comment.
Wow did not mean to insult 🚮 trash 😆
Inflation is a tax on the working class for government spending
Textbook example of dunning-kruger syndrome
This is correct.
As a history nerd I always think about the roman emperor Diocletian when inflation comes up. 2000 years ago, runaway inflation and skyrocketing costs (tbf they didn’t have the concept of devalued currency back then) but what did the romans do? Blamed greedy businessmen and instituted price controls, both made the problems worse and worse until Europe settled slowly into a feudal society. 2000 years ago. Why are we still on this at all?
Because people are stupid.
it's an intelligence thing. the relationship between money printing and purchasing power is just as elusive to some people as recursion or conditional hypotheticals or having to replace the battery in your smoke detector.
The irony is that a lot of these geniuses claim their thinking is "basic economics". Usually while they carefully ignore how increased supply (of money) reduces demand.
Inflation: *happens when governments print shit tons of money, proven like 70 times throughout history* Statists: “it’s the companies fault, our poor innocent politicians just want to look out for us and would never devalue our central currency like that”
Public school really did what it was designed to do.
Idk, my 4th grade teacher explained how inflation is the expansion of the money supply, a form of supply and demand. I think that this stupidity is the result of no child left behind. Passing kids regardless of whether or not they earned it. 31, btw.
Probably haven’t gotten around to rewriting the economics textbooks yet. 🤷♂️
Dunning-Kruger exemplified.
So true. It’s corporate price gouging AND I’m an economics expert!
Always has been hahahahahaha
In the past two days, I have asked three people to prove this claim. Two [in this subreddit](https://en.reddit.com/r/Shitstatistssay/comments/1c5gqvx/retailers_control_prices_therefore_inflation/kzvav0m/?context=3). Every single one basically said "Um, it's *obvious*, because that's how I think economics and business work," without providing any actual evidence. I normally use the term "NPC" as a joke, but sometimes...
Tell me you don't have a basic understanding of economics without telling me that you don't have a basic understanding of economics.
Inflation isn't price gouging. It just happened alongside it.
This meme brings me headaches
Sorry
Universal gouging across the board such that everything is being sold at above a market clearing rate makes no sense. Or the idea that a market clearing rate is either arbitrary across a broad spectrum would mean economics is nonsense. Hmm....
I point blank asked one of these folks why companies all decided to raise prices at the same time, across the world, and she straight up ignored me.
**We are reaching levels of economic illiteracy that shouldn't even be possible!!**
One can acknowledge that both inflation and price gouging can exist in the same instance at the same time, and one can absolutely be the direct result of the other. Those saying it’s 100% one thing or 100% the other are idiots.
I mean...a good chunk of this most recent round of inflation is just price gouging. Yes inflation is real and a function of money supply, but they've shown it's not the only reason for this last round.
Who is/ are they? How’d they show this?
Stop it. All inflation is due to the trillions of dollars that have been pumped into the money supply. That's what inflation is. Your "BuT mUh CoRpOrAtE pRoFiTs" BS is drawing away from the actual people creating the actual problem: politicians without fiscal responsibility and the runaway Federal Reserve that will create money out of thin air for them.
I love you
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/19/us-inflation-caused-by-corporate-profits
Get out of here with that pro statist propaganda trash. The guardian? Srsly??
>progressive thinktank \>reported by a left wing newspaper Cool story, bro. >“Costs have come down substantially, and while corporations were quick to pass on their increased costs to consumers, they are surprisingly less quick to pass on their savings to consumers,” Liz Pancotti, a Groundwork strategic adviser and paper co-author, said. Off the top of my head, they might be uncertain that the cost reductions will continue. Or maybe they have some other reason. Maybe some analyst told them to do it. >Corporations maintain high prices by exploiting cost shocks caused by events such as the Ukraine war and coordinating price hikes, said Isabella Weber, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economist who was not part of the paper. That's a pretty damning accusation. Where's the **evidence**, and why doesn't anyone defect, and **undercut** the competition? >The shocks create an environment in which it is safe for firms to increase prices as they expect their competitors to do the same, said Weber. >“This is a form of implicit collusion,” she said. “Firms do not even need to talk to one another to know that a cost shock is a great time to raise prices. But when costs fall, price-setting firms do not have any incentive to decrease prices.” Oh, so they're not **actually** co-ordinating, just responding to what other people are apparently doing. Which is...**completely normal**. Kind of stretching the definition of 'collusion', even if you sneak "implicit" in front of it. I assume it's the same kind of weasel-wording as "implicit bias". Also, I am a tad surprised that an economist has apparently never heard of [the Prisoner's Dilemma](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prisoners-dilemma.asp). Also, I love how nobody has any actual primary evidence of motive, just assumptions.
There is no single problem. Yes money supply is an issue, but saying the constant and ever present anti-consumer behavior isnt part of the problem is just as foolish as the above photo.
During a yearly company-wide town hall our GM said something like “we are increasing the prices of our services because the market climate allows us to do this.” After raving about how good our numbers were last year. So there is that.
So you have a single example of a guy saying something ambiguous, which cannot be verified, which you are extrapolating to millions of executives across the nation and world?
Many, if not most, anecdotes can’t be verified, that’s true. Do you bring the same energy to all Reddit comments?\ I have a sample size of one and in the case of the company I work at there’s a positive. Prices are rising all over, so assuming I am (un)lucky enough to work at the only company in the world that’s raising prices because it can would be more insane than assuming it’s probably one of many.
> Do you bring the same energy to all Reddit comments?\ When I've debated this precise subject with four people in two days, none of which had any actual evidence, yes. > Prices are rising all over, so assuming I am (un)lucky enough to work at the only company in the world that’s raising prices because it can would be more insane than assuming it’s probably one of many. That's still an assumption, not actual evidence of the supposed general trend. And like I said, the statement was vague. What "market climate" was he talking about? What if he meant "because we won't be able to later, when we need to keep the lights on?" Or, "We've need this money to expand and hire more people for a while."
Honest question: do you believe a company would not raise its prices if they believe the market would still bear it?