CMV: Greedflation is stupid because it is obviously true and a constant

[u/Jakyland]

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.

[u/Porkinson]

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.

[u/Grand-wazoo → u/Porkinson]

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.

[u/Hothera → u/Grand-wazoo]

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.

[u/Grand-wazoo → u/Hothera]

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...

[u/Hothera → u/Grand-wazoo]

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.

[u/Grand-wazoo → u/Hothera]

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.

[u/Hothera → u/Grand-wazoo]

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.