“Congress has stalled out on doing work that it could do to help families lower costs," Sen. Warren tells TIME. "The President has the tools to fight back.”
But why are the prices of food rising faster than the costs paid by companies (this is inclusive of all costs)? The naive assumption is that if all costs were originally x and prices were 1.1x, then as costs become 1.3x, prices become 1.1*1.3x. However, their profit margins as a percentage rose. So instead of 1.1 we now have 1.4.
Obviously the numbers used are fake, but this is why people are angry and it’s not something I’ve seen explained using economic principles that don’t involve terms like market consolidation at best or collusion at worst on any article. Rage sells so telling people their groceries cost more because there aren’t enough grocers or the grocers are collaborating is good business for newspapers as long as they can find an expert or group to make the allegations for them.
The idea of prices going up and down by the same amount is based on an equilibrium situation. This isn’t ruled out; it could very well be that the high profits of grocery companies is transient (or “transitory” as they say). But in the short run, prices don’t move in lockstep.
Aside from market power or collusion, there are other reasons prices could shift more quickly for some sectors than others (even as all prices are going upward). For example, does the industry rely on long term contracts or short term contracts? Is inflation hedging widely available for the goods and services in question? Is the activity more or less sensitive to interest rates?
But these are questions about relative prices. Instead of playing a game of whack a mole, better not to set off inflation in the first place.
But why are the prices of food rising faster than the costs paid by companies (this is inclusive of all costs)? The naive assumption is that if all costs were originally x and prices were 1.1x, then as costs become 1.3x, prices become 1.1*1.3x. However, their profit margins as a percentage rose. So instead of 1.1 we now have 1.4.
Obviously the numbers used are fake, but this is why people are angry and it’s not something I’ve seen explained using economic principles that don’t involve terms like market consolidation at best or collusion at worst on any article. Rage sells so telling people their groceries cost more because there aren’t enough grocers or the grocers are collaborating is good business for newspapers as long as they can find an expert or group to make the allegations for them.
The idea of prices going up and down by the same amount is based on an equilibrium situation. This isn’t ruled out; it could very well be that the high profits of grocery companies is transient (or “transitory” as they say). But in the short run, prices don’t move in lockstep.
Aside from market power or collusion, there are other reasons prices could shift more quickly for some sectors than others (even as all prices are going upward). For example, does the industry rely on long term contracts or short term contracts? Is inflation hedging widely available for the goods and services in question? Is the activity more or less sensitive to interest rates?
But these are questions about relative prices. Instead of playing a game of whack a mole, better not to set off inflation in the first place.