Where will inflation stop?

frenchyd said:

      Where do you get the excuses from?   Those who know me know how successful I've been in spite of problems not of my making.  
     

I get them from the story you like to post in 90% of the threads you comment in about how "you can't plan for everything" and in 2008 this happened, then that happened, then you didn't work for years, etc. Those excuses. I guarantee you posted it in the last 5 days. You're either broke, or incredibly successful depending on the day. 
 

Edit: you posted the same old story Yesterday, so not even the last 5 days. 

bobzilla said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

No, he picked the FIRST COMPANY ON THE LIST. When the first one, with the largest angry red bar is misleading, I'm not wasting my time with the rest of it. They've shown that they are trying to stir the pot of some anti-capitalistic whatever. You want to keep using that link as your example, YOU need to put in the effort to prove to the rest of us it's not bullE36 M3. 

Alright, here goes, all laid out so you don't need to click on anything to see the information, if you have a portrait monitor put this on it and you may not even have to scroll.

First of all, rather than nitpicking over which individual food companies had a bad year, let's look at some overall food processing net margins from here which I've meticulously typed into a spreadsheet and graphed out (there are a couple of gaps where no data was available):

From this we can see that profit margins are generally higher since the pandemic. 3 out of the 5 times margins exceeded 8% were in 2020 or later, as were 9 out of the 10 times it exceeded 6%.

Now to get back into the details, here are a few of graphs showing all the companies from the graph linked earlier with data available on macrotrends, plus the other biggest food companies available on there. I tried to group them to stay zoomed in and show the most detail:

From this we can see again that 2019 was not really a bad year overall. The only companies out of these that had a bad year in 2019 were P&G, Kraft-Heinz, and Molson-Coors.
 

This is much better. But there are still some concerns that have not been addressed. 
 

I like that the top graph shows industry averages. But as I explained earlier, margin percentages alone can be misleading. We expect margin percentage to go up during times of reduced supply. But without net margin dollars, we don't know of the percentage increase grew sales or just mitigated losses. Two identical bars on the graph can represent vastly different net margin dollar results. It's like trying to estimate horsepower with only knowing boost pressure. Two different engines can have huge differences at the same boost pressure. 
 

I like that the bottom graphs use net margin dollars. But we are back to picking individual companies. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that they are somewhat randomly chosen. But they don't really tell us too much either, as they have very diverse results. While some have a bump in 2021, most appear to be returning to a previous baseline, despite inflation (of which the companies both contribute to and themselves feel the effects.) I'll like to see 2022, as numbers I've seen suggest a downward trend continuing into 2023. 
 

Now this is just data. Useful in identifying trends, but of no value in determining cause. There are a number of factors at work, nothing above points to greed or profiteering. That doesn't mean it's not there, but it's a leap without further evidence. It also requires a definition. If a business maximized profit to make up for previous losses or projected future losses, is that greed? The data above also does not support a coordinated industry effort to maximize profits as previously alleged. 
 

It does appear that you have an opinion and you are looking for data to support it rather than the other way around. It also seems that you would be disappointed to learn that regular market forces are responsible for most of the inflation rather than simply greed. It might surprise you that my opinion was much closer to yours before I looked at the data with an open mind. It helps that I've worked closely with manufacturing challenges- in other industries- these last couple years. 

This is also pure conjecture on my part ( and a couple of casually overheard conversations). 
  In times of scarcity it is possible that management anticipating demand, raise prices.  Which yields higher profits to offset lower sales. 

In reply to frenchyd :

That is exactly what happens. If sales are capped due to scarcity, they must raise prices to maintain their income. Most people understand that when demand is low and there is excess inventory, companies must discount/lower prices. This is the same mechanism, just going the other way. 

Depends on whether scarcity is real or artificial, or if regulatory capture has allowed the raising of prices without competition. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

That is exactly what happens. If sales are capped due to scarcity, they must raise prices to maintain their income. Most people understand that when demand is low and there is excess inventory, companies must discount/lower prices. This is the same mechanism, just going the other way. 

but eViL gReEdY cApItAlIsTs!!!11!!one!

In reply to pheller :

Depends on whether scarcity is real or artificial, or if regulatory capture has allowed the raising of prices without competition. 
 

No it doesn't. Scarcity is scarcity, and the effects are the same. We could have a discussion about "artificial" scarcity, but that's only barely tangential to the current discussion, and a tiny fraction of the big picture we are taking about. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to pheller :

Depends on whether scarcity is real or artificial, or if regulatory capture has allowed the raising of prices without competition. 

No it doesn't. Scarcity is scarcity, and the effects are the same. We could have a discussion about "artificial" scarcity, but that's only barely tangential to the current discussion, and a tiny fraction of the big picture we are taking about. 

And, like quicksand, not nearly as big a problem as some people are led to believe.

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

That is exactly what happens. If sales are capped due to scarcity, they must raise prices to maintain their income. Most people understand that when demand is low and there is excess inventory, companies must discount/lower prices. This is the same mechanism, just going the other way.

 IMHO it really depends on factors other than profit.  
 

My example is insulin. Prices were raised completely out of proportion to its "scarcity " or any such reason other than pure finical   greed.  
   Considering the cost of it is now priced out of the ability of some to afford it causing some of them to die without it. 
  Why is that not manslaughter?  

frenchyd said:

My example is insulin. Prices were raised completely out of proportion to its "scarcity " or any such reason other than pure finical   greed.  
   Considering the cost of it is now priced out of the ability of some to afford it causing some of them to die without it. 
  Why is that not manslaughter?  

There are about a dozen reasons why that's not manslaughter.

But let's start here:  Do you really want to go down the path of making every human being on earth criminally liable to keep every other human being  alive?

Not just act in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent inflicting harm.  Literally, actively responsible for the health and well-being of every other person on the planet.

It may or may not be a dick move - personally, I think may be - but it is not criminal.  It also depends on more analysis than the typical face value reaction things like that get.

frenchyd said:

In reply to Duke :

I'll accept that it's not criminal. But I suspect the real reason it's not prosecuted  is because the Uber wealthy can simply hide behind lawyers. 

If it's not criminal... why would they need to hide behind expensive lawyers?

In reply to frenchyd :

n reply to Duke :

I'll accept that it's not criminal. But I suspect the real reason it's not prosecuted  is because the Uber wealthy can simply hide behind lawyers.  
  Guys like you and I can't afford the teams of lawyers costing millions of dollars  it would take to get away with such actions.  
     Since we agree that it's a dick move, can we also agree that your first defense about being responsible for  every person on earth?   
  That smacks close to the argument  about a slippery slope.    
 

Do you realize how backwards your thought process is? You start with a conclusion, make stuff up to support it, proclaim a crazy solution, then say it will never work. Not because your conclusion is unsupported or your solution is crazy- but because rich people can get away with anything because lawyers. Another unsupported conclusion. 
 

Maybe educate yourself on the subject first? Just a little? Instead of playing the telephone game and repeating what you hear with less accuracy than the person who repeated it to you? 15 minutes. Spend 15 minute looking up the cost of insulin, the history, where the cost increases came from (hint, it's not always the pharmaceuticals companies.) Learn what people actually pay, not the click bait headlines that next to nobody actually pays. Learn about the solutions that have already been implemented, including a substantial price drop/cap by one of the companies that you demonized. Be critical of your sources. Are they just sharing information, or are they trying to lead you to a conclusion? Is their example typical, or an extreme outlier? Are they being intellectually honest? Be careful, there are a lot of traps. See if you can spot them. 

frenchyd said:

In reply to Duke :

     Since we agree that it's a dick move, can we also agree that your first defense about being responsible for  every person on earth?     

What does this sentence even mean?

I meant my point completely, because it's logically true.

frenchyd said:

My example is insulin. Prices were raised completely out of proportion to its "scarcity " or any such reason other than pure finical   greed.  

   Considering the cost of it is now priced out of the ability of some to afford it causing some of them to die without it. 
  Why is that not manslaughter?  

Legally it's not manslaughter because it simply doesn't meet the legal definition, no lawyers necessary. There are countries where it's legally impossible for a man to have raped his wife too.

To me it seems rather manslaughtery as well, but it may be more in line with a product contamination issue. If an exec killed customers by intentionally adding a cheap but dangerous chemical substitute to the product (see also: melamine in baby food), what would they be guilty of? To me that's pretty similar to killing people by pricing the product out of their hands through gratuitous profiteering.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

And that's where we fundamentally disagree.  It's not similar at all.

If you are selling food, then your product is legally and morally obligated to be food.  Anything else constitutes fraud at best or endangerment at worst.

However, you are under zero obligation to sell food in the first place.

The exact same is true of medicine.  No one is under any obligation at all to sell medicine, no matter how necessary or life-saving it may be.  You cannot therefore extend that non-existent obligation to include selling it at any particular price.  No matter how many people may die without it, no one is under any obligation to produce or sell a particular product.

Unless you're going down frenchy's poorly-considered rabbit hole of making every human being legally responsible for the welfare of every other human being.

Duke said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to Duke :

     Since we agree that it's a dick move, can we also agree that your first defense about being responsible for  every person on earth?     

What does this sentence even mean?

I meant my point completely, because it's logically true.

 

If you are aware of someone's intention to harm or kill another person you have a legal obligation  to inform the police.  That does not make you responsible for everyone. 

frenchyd said:

Duke said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to Duke :

     Since we agree that it's a dick move, can we also agree that your first defense about being responsible for  every person on earth?     

What does this sentence even mean?

I meant my point completely, because it's logically true.

If you are aware of someone's intention to harm or kill another person you have a legal obligation  to inform the police.  That does not make you responsible for everyone. 

This is relevant to the discussion in what possible way?

Duke said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

And that's where we fundamentally disagree.  It's not similar at all.

If you are selling food, then your product is legally and morally obligated to be food.  Anything else constitutes fraud at best or endangerment at worst.

However, you are under zero obligation to sell food in the first place.

The exact same is true of medicine.  No one is under any obligation at all to sell medicine, no matter how necessary or life-saving it may be.  You cannot therefore extend that non-existent obligation to include selling it at any particular price.  No matter how many people may die without it, no one is under any obligation to produce or sell a particular product.

Unless you're going down frenchy's poorly-considered rabbit hole of making every human being legally responsible for the welfare of every other human being.

 

Sounds more like a religious argument to me than a legal argument or a rabbit hole argument. Here's what you find in that rabbit hole;

-------------

:To be your brother's keeper in Christianity means to take and interest in your fellow man and to share his burdens in the way that Christ is supposed to take on the suffering and shoulder the burdens of all mankind. It's a way of asking you "Are you a Christian"

: : When Cain came back from the fields without Abel, Eve, his mother, asked him, "Where's Abel?" He responded, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Eve did not answer directly, and the interesting story unfolded without any answer at all, except what one might read into it. Talmudic scholars may have supplied an answer, I don't know. Everyone who wants an answer has to answer the question himself. Liberals tend to answer, "Yes, you are. WE are." That is, we are responsible for the welfare of our brothers and sisters, of helping those who have fallen to get up, and to try to keep them from falling in the first place. For brothers and sisters read, fellow members of the human race.
: : The conservative answer is, "Hell, no! Why should I waste time and money on my fellow citizens not directly related to me. Let all those other poor bastards accept individual responsibility. If they can't do that, screw 'em!" SS

: I could well be wrong here, as it is a long time since I took any interest in matters Biblical, but I thought that God, after Cain had killed Abel, asked Cain where his brother was (pointless if God is omniscient, but no matter) and Cain replied 'Am I my brother's keeper?'. The point being that we are our brothers' keepers in the sense that we are responsible for their welfare.

-------

So if you believe in the Christian Religion, yes, you have to provide affordable insulin to your brother so he will not die. If you are an atheist or a satanist or you worship Thor or some other Marvel Hero you have no obligations to help your brother or anybody else and I will see you in Hell if such a place exists.

They say that the United States is a Christian country. I really don't think so, but that is what many people say.

Hmmm.

This has got to be the most tactful and reasoned response i've read in this thread.  Bravo sir..

It may still piss someone off, but i applaud the effort nontheless..

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

Religion has nothing to do with it.  It has to do with voluntary association.

One may choose any outside responsibility - responsibilities towards other than oneself - that one wishes.  That includes any responsibilities that come with dutifully following the teachings of Christ, if that is what you choose to do.  The extent to which you accept those responsibilities is still up to you.  They cannot be imposed upon you against your wishes.  They are subject to your voluntary association with Christ and His teachings.

The United States is not a "Christian nation" in any way.  It is a nation where anyone is free to be a Christian if they choose.  Or not.  That voluntary association thing pops up again.  It's important.

We are responsible for not initiating harm against our fellow humans.  That is a non-voluntary responsibility and it is pretty close to the only one.  Failing or declining to help a person is not the same as initiating harm to them.  We are not responsible for their well-being for factors unrelated to our own actions... unless we choose to be (I told you that bit was important).

Please note that it is very possible to choose a set of voluntary responsibilities that are very similar to the teachings of Christ without being a Christian, or religious in any way at all.

Please also note that there are many very good reasons to choose a voluntary association with society, including a desire to help one's fellow humans.  Nothing about this prevents you from doing so or says that voluntarily doing so is bad or stupid.  It only becomes bad to the extent that it becomes compulsory.

Apparently it's ok to bring religion into the discussion? I missed that memo. 
You sound bitter. I'm sorry. 
If we're talking about the Bible and what we are  ASKED to contribute to the building of the Kingdom, a tithe is pretty clearly defined. We're well past that. Aside from that, it has been clearly demonstrated that the self appointed stewards of our welfare are out of touch at best, and corrupt at worst. Snowdoggie, you have attacked individual members here repeatedly, and groups of us. You have been given specific examples of waste and dismissed them out of hand. 
 

It has been said that everyone has their religion. We all assign the role of God to that in life we deem to be the highest possible good. For some, it is this religion or that. For others it may be a cause. Simple charity, correcting injustices, feeding the hungry, fighting for whatever people or environmental issue they see. Some are completely self serving, believing themselves to be more important than anyone or anything. There are inarguably good and bad actors in all walks of life. Our duty is not to judge. 
I pay my taxes, and I can show where the money is wasted. You have shown a complete disregard for those concerns. I do not mind you attempting to use whatever sources you want to lay out what you believe my moral obligations are, but man, that's a two way street and you've shown how little you care for the opposing traffic. 

Edit: Never mind. Not getting sucked back into this mud wrestling pit.

In reply to bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) :

Where will inflation stop?

Page 47. When we stop posting on this dead end thread?