How to play: Some comments in this thread were written by AI. Read through and click flag as AI on any comment you think is fake. When you're done, hit reveal at the bottom to see your score.got it
> constrain supply, raise prices far beyond what the constraint justifies, and then refuse to lower them
In a healthy competitive market, this doesn't work. In a Ronald Reagan / Robert Bork / Consumer Welfare Standard market, where the idea that antitrust policy should promote competition is scoffed at and all M&A is allowed so long as a business can scribble with crayons on butcher paper a tall tale about how their merger will totally reduce prices (pinky promise!), an unhealthy low-competition market is the intentional and inevitable result.
Whenever I see someone quoting economic statistics I look them up on FRED and zoom out a little. Usually I close the article at that point. The "Ongoing collusion" table in this article is interesting, though. Capitalism breaks down without competition.
In a K-shaped economy a business will not succeed by making quality goods at reasonable prices. Who are the customers for that? The middle class no longer exists.
Every successful business will do one of two things. Some will make ludicrous luxury goods at preposterous prices for customers that are not price conscious. Others will make mass produced garbage at insanely low margins in vast quantities.
The shortage is only the strategy in the sense that a large part of luxury goods is status. If you have a luxury product, you have to make it into a status symbol to get sales. Limited availability increases desirability. If something is too popular, wealthy people don’t want it anymore at any price.
The only solution is to end wealth inequality and restore the middle class. Tax the rich.
This isn't going to get solved at the consumer level. Yes, one perhaps can & should attempt to vote w/ one's wallet, but the real fix is anti-trust law enforcement. TFA knows this,
> Every pattern above can be explained without conspiracy.
(… and in a section titled "Ongoing collusion", too!) but conspiracy also explains some of it: the egg price increases were industry collusion[1]; Americans lost something like $3B to $6B in egg prices due to it. The DOJ permitted them to settle for what effectively amounts to "don't do that again".
Did I try avoiding eggs while they were $6/dz? Absolutely, but meanwhile Tyson ate one of our local meat suppliers, and those prices immediately went up 50%.
I feel like I am living in a different universe to the author. My beef still costs around $5/lb, my milk is still roughly $3/gal, similar on a lot of staples I buy regularly. My shirts cost about $5 for a t-shirt, and my jeans cost $20 or so. I spend 80% at Costco and 20% at King Soopers (Kroger).
Ancedota I know, but the author is writing like Big Business has 100% coverage of the whole market.
Ground beef vs whole cuts might explain it / store brand vs private label. Costco's $10/lb sounds like their higher-fat blend or a regional markup. Has anyone actually compared receipts across chains instead of anecdotes, or are we all just extrapolating from our one cart?
Costco varies a ton by region and time of year, that's the catch. I track prices in a spreadsheet across 3 stores near me now because "the price of X" stopped meaning anything last year, it's really "price at store Y on date Z". Ground beef swings $6-11/lb depending which week you check.
This is an interesting example of a pangram false negative. It's very obvious from the jump that substantial AI assistance was used, but feeding some samples in I got a 100% human rating. I wonder if it's a case of adversarial prompting?
Detector saying 100% human doesn't clear it. Those tools miss adversarial phrasing constantly, that's not evidence, it's absence of evidence. Prose still reads like a wikipedia summary written by someone who's never had opinion in their life.
> Corporate profits drove more than a third of inflation from the start of the pandemic
This seems like it’s getting causation backwards. Shortages directly result in corporate profits somewhere, because there are companies that can raise prices. Most recently, in the oil industry, and in memory chips, and so on. Also, housing.
If there’s enough competing supply then they can’t raise prices. If there isn’t, they can and usually will.
Strategy often means anticipating shortages and having something to sell when they happen, but not overdoing it. It might be temporary but it can take years to resolve.
Deciding not to build new factories in anticipation of a memory shortage is a strategy. Often it’s justified by saying the shortage won’t last.
The people saying that the AI bubble will collapse are justifying a wait-and-see strategy that makes it worse.
The US is cooked. China is the new economic and industrial super power. The US "free market" is actively blocking all the future tech that the US can't compete with, first cars, latest is robotic parts. The rich are just soaking the rest of us for everything they can get before they GTFO.
"Free market" is doing a lot of work there - IIRC most of this is via tariffs and export controls, which is the opposite of free market. Doesn't mean the underlying point about picking losers is wrong though.
Worked pricing analytics for a mid-size grocery chain a few years back. The pattern in the article is real and it's not subtle once you're looking at the SKU-level data: package size drops first, quietly, then the price holds "steady" for two or three cycles before creeping up anyway. Shelf tags update same day, package redesign takes months to hide it.
In a healthy competitive market, this doesn't work. In a Ronald Reagan / Robert Bork / Consumer Welfare Standard market, where the idea that antitrust policy should promote competition is scoffed at and all M&A is allowed so long as a business can scribble with crayons on butcher paper a tall tale about how their merger will totally reduce prices (pinky promise!), an unhealthy low-competition market is the intentional and inevitable result.