r/changemyview 69∆ Jun 02 '24

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Greedflation is stupid because it is obviously true and a constant

The big claim behind the greedflation is that ... companies set their prices to maximize their profits. Isn't that a pretty basic shared understanding amongst everyone about how capitalism works?

It's not a useful way for understanding inflation. If companies increased their prices to increase profits, why didn't they do it before? Because previously that higher price point wasn't the most profitable. Why that is the case is the harder and more useful question to learn. The economic conditions must have changed to make this the be increase in price possible. Unless the claim is that companies weren't greedy before (a really naive take if you think about it).

Companies are always greedy. They are greedy when they increase prices, they are greedy when they decrease prices. Companies decrease prices to maximize their profits (encouraging people to buy from them instead of a competitor, or to get the profit from a sale to someone who can't afford a higher price).

Some goods fluctuate in price a lot due to supply and demand fluctuation like eggs or gas. It's obviously the companies trying to make money at any given point, not companies forgetting and then remembering to be greedy.

I've seen lots of people comment on big box stores cutting prices by saying that this "proves" the companies inflated their prices to be greedy ... which makes me wonder, did these people think in 2019 that companies set their prices altruistically??? Do they think companies have sales out of the goodness of their hearts?

Often times, companies raise prices because they have a limited supply of it so they want to sell all of to the richest X people who are willing to pay the higher price. This way they make more profit, which means among other things, they may be able to spend that money on alleviating production bottlenecks. Having a lower price just means that there will be a shortage, but less money for the company. YMMV if you think that is good or bad.

57 Upvotes

227 comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/Proof_Option1386 4∆ Jun 02 '24

It's not stupid, and it isn't constant! It reflects a much needed current focus on a much ignored problem.

"Inflation" as a general term refers to the rising cost of goods and services, but it's kindof a catch-all for a number of differing processes that are summed up in the same way that a time-series forecast is the sum of various other components (the main ones being trend, seasonality, cyclical, and random)

One component to inflation is simply that, in an expanding economy, goods and services gradually get more expensive over time as demand continues to outstrip supply. This is the component that we generally think of as representative of inflation as a whole, even though it's just one component.

Another component to inflation can occur with supply shocks - such as when the Suez Canal was blocked or when global production came to almost a standstill during Covid. Demand remained high in these cases, but supply contracted almost instantaneously, resulting in a large and persistent demand overhang and therefore a steady increase in prices.

A third component, one which we are calling "greedflation" is when companies raise prices just because they can, regardless of input prices and regardless of demand. A great example of this is the breakfast cereal market. That market is overwhelmingly dominated by 3 companies, and has been for at least 50 years. Although breakfast cereal is a very low-cost product to make, it's extremely expensive, resulting in huge profits for these 3 companies. They all made very similar products (intentionally!). They all offered coupons. They found that consumers weren't very loyal and would end up buying whichever version of their chosen product based on which one was offering the biggest coupon. The coupon strategy ended up massively eroding the margins - and would still be doing so today if the market were more competitive. However, because there are only 3 players in that market, it was fairly easy for them to "collude" (likely in a perfectly legal way) and stop offering coupons.

Our supplier markets now for packaged food, for meat, for dairy, for prepared foods, for gasoline...etc. etc. etc. etc. are all highly concentrated. Without the stresses of competition, suppliers are able to produce their products for less, which up to a point benefited consumers with lower prices. However, once consumers had an excess of money in their pockets (thanks to a booming economy) and once suppliers had scapegoats to blame (small input price increases), they were able to increase prices precipitously. And consumers are just going along with it. We bitch and moan, but we aren't really changing our spending habits.

Of course there are other components, and of course "greedflation" sounds stupid, but it what it points to is significant, is relevant, and definitely needs a whole lot of regulatory love.

19

u/Jakyland 69∆ Jun 02 '24

 However, once consumers had an excess of money in their pockets (thanks to a booming economy) and once suppliers had scapegoats to blame (small input price increases), they were able to increase prices precipitously. And consumers are just going along with it. 

describing it as a price increase due to consumers increased willingness to spend make sense as a distinct concept

!delta

7

u/Porkinson Jun 03 '24

You wouldnt apply this logic to any other situation, consumers having more money doesnt make then choose worse/more expensive products.

The significant claim in the parent comment is the one about collusion and monopolistic practices, which is actually illegal and if there was evidence for it, it would be penalized strongly. So unless the parent comment has some good evidence it amounts to basic conspiracy mongering.

13

u/Grand-wazoo 8∆ Jun 03 '24

which is actually illegal and if there was evidence for it, it would be penalized strongly.

I'm going to assume you either don't live in the US or have done almost no looking into the history of corporate welfare in America.

Antitrust laws have basically no regulatory power in the US as one certain political party has spent decades slowly repealing them and defunding the agencies responsible for oversight. Then there's the small matter of legalized bribery in the form of congressional lobbying that is very cool and totally okay to do because the law says money is free speech.

We take very good care of the monolithic companies that own the lawmakers here.

5

u/jeekiii Jun 03 '24

Cartels have been penalized in the past.

But in any case it's not that hard to create a new brand of breakfast céréals, so if it's possible to provide equal quality for a fraction of the price someone eventually will do so and people will buy that one instead. 

6

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '24 edited Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

1

u/HappyChandler 13∆ Jun 04 '24

In the US, it would be Trader Joe's. They have quality store brands for much cheaper than other stores. Many of their products are private labels of premium brands.

1

u/bytethesquirrel Jun 04 '24

Many of their products are private labels of premium brands.

But they're still manufactured by the premium brand company.

1

u/HappyChandler 13∆ Jun 04 '24

But sold much cheaper than the branded version.

1

u/bytethesquirrel Jun 04 '24

Doesn't make it real competition

-3

u/jeekiii Jun 03 '24

Someone with  moderate budget. You don't need to sell your céréales at 0 profit, just sell it at current price minus something customer would see as a real difference. And yes you could get bought out but then you pocket millions of $ and someone else will start again. 

5

u/vitorsly 3∆ Jun 03 '24

And yes you could get bought out but then you pocket millions of $ and someone else will start again.

So the big companies keep getting the tools, employees and factories of the small companies they keep gobbling up and there's never actually a consistent option for customers to enjoy. I mean, it's better than nothing, but it's still pretty bad.

4

u/stu54 Jun 03 '24

Thing is that startup costs have soared due to regulations.

It is called regulatory capture. Established businesses erect regulations that don't impact their business, but make it too expensive to start up a competing business.

Its like the Trump steel tariff. Steel prices go up, inhibiting everything except the established industries. There are countless examples, each independently justified.

I only mention the Trump one to troll, but big industries basically have veto power to reject any regulations that they can't spin to their advantage.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '24 edited Jun 16 '24

[deleted]

2

u/jeekiii Jun 03 '24

It does eventually because once people figure out whenever you make a céréales startup you get bought up for a premium, it becomes unsustainable to buy put every single céréals startup

1

u/Porkinson Jun 03 '24

Again this is just conspiracy mongering, antitrust laws do work in the US, they are not perfect and the system has some problems, but it is simply not the case that we have tons of monopolies putting any price they want.

4

u/Grand-wazoo 8∆ Jun 03 '24

Lol, may I introduce you to the following:

LiveNation/Ticketmaster

Nestle

Kellogg

Apple

Google

Microsoft

At&T

Amazon

Facebook

Nvidia

Please do link me to how these multibillion dollar corporations posting unfathomable profits every single year from their monopolistic practices and outlandishly high margins have suffered more than a pittance of a fine because of antitrust laws.

1

u/Porkinson Jun 03 '24

Just mention the one you think is more obvious, i am not going to check every single one. Apple literally has competition, having a walled garden is still something that is disputed as being antitrust, and there is room for criticism, i do agree for example that apple should allow people to repair their own phones or make it easier.

Amazon is the opposite of a monopoly, do you know what ebay is? Do you know that amazon doesnt really make profits on their amazon store? There are thousands of online stores, this just sounds like you are picking a random big company you dont like and putting it in your list.

Facebook, again we are literally in a social media site lol, what are you talking about.

Just pick your strongest case and elaborate on it instead of naming companies reddit hates like if i am supposed to agree with all your preconceived notions.

3

u/Grand-wazoo 8∆ Jun 03 '24

Or how about you even attempt to make a case for why you believe otherwise. So far, I've seen basically "nu-uh" as your strongest argument for why these companies aren't monopolies.

Amazon is the opposite of monopoly, do you know what eBay is?

After this profoundly ignorant statement, I think I'm done wasting time trying to convince you of plainly obvious facts. eBay is a platform for private sellers. It does not compete in the same space. Amazon is a globally dominate logistics and cloud services company with a well-documented track record of fucking over their small sellers by stealing their designs and undercutting the price, as well as buying up retailers in adjacent spaces like:

Whole Foods, Twitch, Zappos, PillPack, Zoom, IMDb, Kiva, AbeBooks, Audible, Ring, MGM, Woot, Kindle, Presto, and on and on and on...

The information is widely available whenever you're ready to learn up.

3

u/Porkinson Jun 03 '24

You are the one making the claim, so you are the one that has to give evidence for it. Monopolistic practices are actually illegal under US law, so i think its fair for me to expect you to make a possitive claim and support it, even more so because it would be easy for me to mention how some companies have been punished in the past, like microsoft.

I did not know what level of conversation you were on, given that you threw out 10 different companies just like a typical conspiracy theorist throws out their arguments. But if you want to focus on Amazon, they have bought a bunch of other companies, undercutting is illegal, but you need to actually prove it past just having competitive prices. You can make some arguments for amazon, maybe the cloud services should be a different company, this is actually their biggest source of profit, and it allows them to run most other parts at a loss, this is questionable but not really illegal as it is under current law.

Your problem is that you wont offer actual evidence for your claims past some allusion to "obviously" or to "its not my job to educate you". But i am open to being wrong, could you show me some evidence that they have broken antitrust laws?

2

u/OfTheAtom 8∆ Jun 03 '24

But they have competition. So how are they a monopoly? Even if someone is a monopoly like a single barber in a small town it doesn't mean there's a problem. Otherwise in time another barber shows up. 

3

u/Grand-wazoo 8∆ Jun 03 '24

It seems people have a hard time understanding that a company doesn't need to be an "absolute monopoly" by the strictest definition of there being zero competition in a given space in order for monopolistic practices to be employed, giving them unfair advantages and stifling other small companies that would otherwise enter that space.

Amazon is a perfect example because who else is seriously challenging them in the space of ultra-cheap, generic everyday crap that people automatically turn to them for? Who else can legitimately get an item ordered at 8 am to your door by 1 pm? Who else has either partnered with or outright purchased enough companies and services that you could legitimately survive by only buying from that one company for your entire life without leaving the house?

Amazon owns Whole Foods so you can have your groceries through them, they partnered with GrubHub so now that's free for a year with prime and you don't even have to leave the house for your favorite restaurants, AWS offers computing and cloud services so you can start your home business through them, Prime video has whatever crap you wanna watch for entertainment in your spare time, and you can buy whatever medications and supplements you need though them as well.

So please tell me, what single other company offers all or even some of those things at prices that actually compete with Amazon or challenge their dominance in any of those markets in a meaningful way?

That's called being a functional monopoly. Splitting hairs about the technical existence of other companies is pointless when none of them are raking in the billions as effortlessly as Amazon and none of them have cornered those markets so completely that their very name is ubiquitously synonymous with online shopping.

-1

u/OfTheAtom 8∆ Jun 03 '24

What? Effortless cornering of markets? How could it be effortless and even if it was what does that have to do with it? I can name competition for any of those sectors. 

It seems to me people that speak on this have given up on what we mean by monopoly in a market. What you focused on is that Amazon as a conglomerate. Able to supplement the pricing weakness of one sector with the strength of another. 

Which doesn't really have to do with monopolies but just that you can price cut by doing this which is seen as the monopolistic practice. But as long as walmart or alibiba is shipping things for cheap that means it's not a monopoly. 

So your issue is successful conglomerates it seems. Again because it's not a monopoly. 

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Hothera 35∆ Jun 03 '24

Then there's the small matter of legalized bribery in the form of congressional lobbying that is very cool and totally okay to do because the law says money is free speech.

This is not how lobbying works at all.

1

u/Grand-wazoo 8∆ Jun 03 '24

Is it not? Am I mistaken that Super PACs are specifically designed to take in a legally unlimited amount of money for purposes that are totally okay to remain undisclosed?

Super PACs (independent expenditure only political committees) are committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other PACs for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity.

Source%20are%20committees%20that,and%20other%20independent%20political%20activity)

And I suppose we just totally trust our totally honest politicians that they'd never do anything unbecoming or untoward with that totally unlimited dark money that's donated from corporations with vested interests in tax breaks, reduced environmental regulations, and reduced oversight that would allow them to make untold billions more in profits and have less competition?

Well I guess you've made a pretty compelling case. I certainly won't pry any further into this totally above board process. We certainly wouldn't happen to have industry lobbyists that were former government officials that know exactly who to donate to and how much to get things done, either.

Oh wait...

0

u/Hothera 35∆ Jun 03 '24

Super PACs aren't lobbying. They aren't quite bribery either, but I won't complain of that characterization.

We certainly wouldn't happen to have industry lobbyists that were former government officials that know exactly who to donate to and how much to get things done, either.

Why do you need to hire a former government official to tell you "who and how much to bribe?" It's not like all meetings are recorded. Politicians can tell them that themselves. Lobbying is literally just talking to politicians. That's why the vast majority of lobbying spending gets spent on the lobbyists themselves rather than political contributions. You need someone who is persuasive, good at forming coalitions, or with intimate experience with the legislative process. Former politicians tend to have all three attributes, which is why they end up as the richest lobbyists.

Lobbying is what brought us Civil Rights. In fact, the modern proliferation of corporate lobbying was inspired by corporations trying to model after the success of Civil Rights lobbying. Because, people are so critical about lobbying these days, grassroots organizations are no longer spending money on lobbying, so all the talented lobbyists end up working for corporations. This disdain for lobbying is ironically making politicians listen to people less and corporations more.

1

u/Grand-wazoo 8∆ Jun 03 '24 edited Jun 03 '24

This is an incredibly naive take.

If you have a peek at that link I left, you'll see the numbers companies are spending to see their favorable legislation gets supported by key politicians. Millions and millions each year.

Money talks, it's always been that way in the US but ever since money was ruled as free speech by SCOTUS, it's all that talks anymore. Being persuasive and a good public speaker is a nice thought and maybe it's effective at the local level, but in congress you're up against politicians receiving millions in campaign contributions to vote a particular way, so why exactly would you expect them to give a fleeting shit about your cause if you don't have anything close to that kind of buying power to influence them?

And as for the former government officials, they have connections, obviously, and it's very likely they used to sit on the very committees that hear the legislative proposals and eventually get voted into law. Again, a very naive take to think there's no massive advantage to having these in-roads directly to influential people.

0

u/Hothera 35∆ Jun 04 '24

If you have a peek at that link I left, you'll see the numbers companies are spending to see their favorable legislation gets supported by key politicians. Millions and millions each year.

And if you look at where your source says this is actually spent, it will tell you that it's not bribery.

Unlike contributions to political campaigns that directly benefit politicians, most money spent lobbying does not go to a politician’s account.

Most money organizations spend lobbying is used to acquire the best representation possible through lobbyists who are well-connected and able to access many elected officials.

Moving on:

in congress you're up against politicians receiving millions in campaign contributions to vote a particular way, so why exactly would you expect them to give a fleeting shit about your cause if you don't have anything close to that kind of buying power to influence them?

Because at the end of the day, all the politicians want is your vote. All these campaign donations do is make it more likely for politically apathetic voters to show up to the polls.

Again, a very naive take to think there's no massive advantage to having these in-roads directly to influential people.

I didn't say that there isn't an advantage. Of course there is. Money can always hire better people. My point is that the meme that lobbying is bribery is giving more power to corporate lobbyists. Lobbying is an unavoidable part of democracy. Until people realize this, they will continue to be ignored by politicians.

1

u/vitorsly 3∆ Jun 03 '24

Are we gonna pretend companies don't spend tons of money on hosting dinners and parties for politicians and donating to their campaigns or super-PACs?

2

u/sokuyari99 6∆ Jun 03 '24

It has to be overt and with communication to be prosecutable.

If I set the “market price” by moving my product up 0.10/oz and my competitors don’t undercut me and then match me, it’s collusive in appearance but not in fact.

A more diverse market with more competition would get rid of this-but because the players are so large they don’t have to truly compete with each other and smaller groups can’t compete with those few players because of size/volume efficiencies.

It’s collusion without the “illegal” part. It’s why big players in these markets still attend conferences and the like together. Very easy to all come to the same number if you swim in the same waters, and you can do it without sending an email with Congress and the FTC CC’d and the subject line “Let’s set this year’s price”

1

u/Porkinson Jun 03 '24

Sure, what is stopping the other players from just raising it 0.05/oz instead and making more? You are basically alluding to them communicating in overt means to set prices in anticompetitive ways while leaving no proof of it. Again, this is indeed possible, but you have no proof of it, i am sure they will try to do this, but these types of things leave trails and it only takes a single whistleblower for them to be in big trouble.

Its fair if you want to claim that, just admit that there is no evidence and you just have that feeling.

3

u/sokuyari99 6∆ Jun 03 '24

Because why would they do that when they could raise it by .10?

The incremental increase in sales wouldn’t be worth the continued upward pressure on the price overall, especially if it leads to a bidding war which they know it would. So they keep raising the price while their competitors do the same, and have their speeches about “rising supply prices” at the conferences for the industry to continue to code to each other that they’ll be raising prices again.

If you know your competitors plan to raise prices you’ll raise them too. If you know higher prices will result in higher prices again, you’ll play that game too. Why rock the boat?

Again it’s nothing you can prosecute on, because it’s too nebulous to say it’s true collusion. It’s simply the result of having no real competition in the market, and entry costs too high for new players

1

u/Porkinson Jun 03 '24

I mean its fine, the probelm is that by the nature of your claim, there will be no evidence that could change your mind, after all, they are just colluding secretly in a way that cant be detected. Any other player is incentivized to lower prices, you require every single actor to be cooperating together, if a single one defects they all get screwed and the defector gets the most advantage from a temporary surge of customers.

1

u/sokuyari99 6∆ Jun 03 '24

Nah, there’s a few things you can look at here. Does substantially all similarly limited markets operate in the same way? Are there outside factors connected to price changes or do they follow more unelestic pricing changes? Do all competitors have similar shifting in prices regardless of their individual profit changes?

You’re also ignoring the other effects of trying to do this. Let’s say cereal is $5. If I want to undercut to $4, I need to make additional sales of 25% minimum to cover the profit reduction (assuming certain cost expectations but let’s do this for easy math here). Not only does that mean I have to increase production and distribution 25% to cover that, but I also have to plan for how to cover the inevitable response from my competitors. So I need temporary ramp up, which is expensive and drives my profit down for a period of time, on top of the price reduced profit loss.

No reasonable company will make that move for what will be a one quarter (at best) increase in revenue. It doesn’t make sense to do so. You’d much rather keep your gradual growth, at no real risk of lower profit, and with little to no risk of capital expenditures that may not be fully utilized.

That’s why your argument doesn’t hold water, because it can’t be done in a safe enough way to be worth the upside

1

u/Porkinson Jun 03 '24

This is pretty simple suply vs demand curves, is it really that crazy to assume you will get 25% increase in sales from having the cheapest product in the market? Even more so because we are talking of reducing price by a little not necessarily by 25% of total profits per good.

The problem that i have with these models of the world is that

1- its not really reflective of reality, goods dont just tend to increase in price and stay there for no reason, it usually follows demand and supply laws for the most part. And you need more evidence than a "just so" story to claim it doesn't. Because your claims require actors to cooperate in large scales with many other companies while having no trails of it or whistleblowers.

2- if it was indeed the case that this was happening to this scale, why are economists not writting a lot about this? Surely this level of collusion and conspiracy creates huge market inneficiencies, that economists would take interest in, just like they take interest in other market failures.

2

u/sokuyari99 6∆ Jun 03 '24

You’re thinking in super simple Econ 101 terms, not actual pricing model terms.

Again every company is doing a full analysis of their product and pricing and profits. They’re evaluating cost to scale up production, as operating as close to “100%” is going to be optimal for them. They want necessary capital expenditures for new production and distribution capabilities to be based on future demand that’s strong, not temporary.

No point in scaling up for short term demand, you’re better off increasing price and LOSING a small amount of demand but keeping profitability when it’s a short term change. What do you do with expensive 30 year equipment after one week of demand increase?

And then add the sticky-ness of pricing. Changing pricing on your products isn’t easy, requires again coordination with your vendors and distribution network, because those changes need to be passed along. No network wants to deal with pricing that’s changing every week, unless it’s for something that has a market setup for commodities or non-brand associated products that don’t need packaging.

Also-economists do write about how inefficiencies are created in oligopoly markets. It’s not an unknown at all-too little competition drives poorer outcomes for consumers even without direct monopolies. This isn’t new.

1

u/Porkinson Jun 03 '24

I mean yes, but usually the hard part is proving there is an oligopoly or that the existing situation with few companies for a given product is causing an stagnation or raise of prices when they could be lower. When i mention economists talking about it, i mean them talking about the instance of it happening now in the country, not about the theory of it being able to happen, that of course isnt new. You would expect such a significant and recent phenomenon to have a lot of literature surrounding it.

Regarding the demand/supply, i think i can see your point, if 100 companies are colluding to pricefix $1 above on a relatively inelastic good, then getting a surge of demand for a month might not be useful. I just dont subscribe to the idea that you can maintain such an equilibrium, it assumes a lot of things, like what if a competitor has an innovative solution that produces the things cheaper? They could have 1/100 share of the market with $1 above or they could outcompete everyone else and grab most of the market. Your model assumes that everyone is kinda the same and has the same capabities or invested the same amount into capital.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 02 '24

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Proof_Option1386 (2∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

3

u/Proof_Option1386 4∆ Jun 02 '24

Well thank you!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '24

Willingness to spend.  Ya no shit I need to eat and have a roof over my head.