this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
42 points (87.5% liked)

News

38831 readers
1518 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
rjc@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
42
US disinflation and the COVID-19 supply shock (www.brookings.edu)
submitted 2 years ago by fukhueson@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Bare shelves during the COVID-19 pandemic may have made inventory managers more conservative. That more conservative approach to inventories, in turn, could have generated a wider gap between output prices (where higher prices diminish end demand and therefore boost inventories) and input prices...Output prices rose significantly more than input prices, i.e., firms hiked margins, potentially as a mechanism to better conserve inventory...(Note that this potential driver of COVID-era margin expansion is distinct from and potentially more plausible than “greedflation.”)

Maybe it started out as inventory managers trying to conserve inventory due to uncertainty, but if you look at the charts, output prices spiked even after input prices had come down significantly, and after supply chains had normalized considerably. I think once the businesses saw that people were still buying at the higher prices, and the record profits they were making, they couldn't turn down the opportunity. It was probably a combination of inventory management and greedflation. There's no reason why it has to be only one or the other.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It was probably a combination of inventory management and greedflation. There's no reason why it has to be only one or the other.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/corporate-greed-not-blame-price-pressures-fed-study-shows-2024-05-13/

Corporate price gouging has not been a primary driver of U.S. inflation, according to research published on Monday by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

While markups for motor vehicles and petroleum products did rise sharply during the 2021-2022 inflation surge, markups across the entire spectrum of U.S. goods and services have been relatively flat during the post-pandemic recovery, the bank's latest Economic Letter showed.

"As such, rising markups have not been a main driver of the recent surge and subsequent decline in inflation during the current recovery," wrote the bank's research chief Sylvain Leduc and colleagues Huiyu Li and Zheng Liu.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's a different article. In the original article you posted, the included charts (charts 5 and 6) clearly show a spike in output prices, even after input prices had come down significantly, as I said.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

You're correct it is a different article. It is reporting on greedflation.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Well, maybe the analysts at the Fed made their determination prematurely. Maybe it's a blind spot in their analysis. I don't think companies planned it, necessarily. I'm sure they were as surprised as anyone that consumers were paying the higher prices, but the businesses were, nonetheless, more than happy to reap the rewards. I don't think it's that unbelievable. That's why businesses exist, to make as much profit as possible. If consumers are willing to give them more money, they'll take it. I certainly don't expect them to turn down the extra profits.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well, you're entitled to your opinions, I'll stick with the data.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not sure the data backs up what the Fed is claiming. Regardless, data doesn't necessarily tell the whole story, and if you look only at numbers, figures, and ratios, your analysis is likely insufficient.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I disagree entirely. I would counter that your unsourced personal opinion does not counter data.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Well, let's assess. Do you agree that businesses and companies exist primarily to make as much profit as possible? If so, wouldn't you also agree that it therefore makes sense for companies to seek to maximize profits at every available opportunity?

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 1 points 2 years ago

Price gouging is an illegal practice that should have been stopped by the state.

The state allowed it to happen despite the law.

The state is captured by the rent seekers.

Everything is working as intended?

Also a lot of price gouging happened with things like food and rent.

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think it's way more complicated than that, and that the article disagrees with your unsourced personal opinions. I had hoped you'd have some collection of well sourced articles backing up the simplistic assertion of "line goes up" meme that directly counters the specific data in the article, but unfortunately I see you do not have any reliable data to support your position, much less refute what is in the article. I don't see this going anywhere.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

I think it's way more complicated than that

It is, but I wasn't claiming to be offering an all encompassing theory of the universe, I was offering a premise for my argument. Saying, "it's complicated" is not a refutation of my premise.

[–] xhieron@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Holy shit, actual analysis from a thinktank! And here I was so used to thinly veiled lobbying, propaganda pieces, and bribery that I had begun to think the American research institute was dead.

On the actual substance: if this is true, it should be good politically, but I suspect that recovery from the lingering economic trauma arising from inflation (real or imagined) will lag even further. People feel like prices are still rising too fast, whether they actually are or not, and the aforementioned propaganda engine doesn't help.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Usually what happens is that a Democrat works their ass off fixing the economy, the felt effects lag, and a Republican gets to grunt about how great "their economy" is.

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Straight from the regime propaganda original source folks!!!

[–] fukhueson@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hilarious :)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/

Overall, we rate Brooking Institution Left-Center biased based on donations to primarily Democratic candidates and policy advocacy that slightly favors the left. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to strong sourcing and a clean fact check record. (D. Van Zandt 5/15/2016) Updated (12/22/2023)