• Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    201
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Everyone, stop staying “duh” to research outcomes. Research takes time to design, fund, run and analyze and it’s purpose is to scientifically prove something we all “felt” a while ago.

    Our feelings don’t mean too much because they are often wrong, data backed fact means something. Start being happy about these validation posts and hold off on the pickachu face memes.

    • Eximius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      While the defence for science is nice (wasn’t attacked here), outrage is allowed on public discourse. I think most people are outraged for the lack of inaction of regulatory bodies at the sight of extreme price fixing when everyone and their mother had at least the gut feeling that it is all bullshit.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It doesn’t take research to understand that overwhelming demand + lots of cash-on-hand yields inflation.

      Literally everyone expected inflation after COVID.

      “Greedflation” is just a manipulative way to describe the mechanism of inflation itself, which is price rising to the natural limit the market will bear.

      This is all extremely well-understood.

      • pineapplepizza@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Meanwhile companies are posting record profits from from raising prices above the cost inflation… Greedflation

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        What’s really manipulative is describing any of this as “natural”. People also expected complete stock market collapse during the pandemic but when it comes to rich people’s money, various parts of the government spring into action, and that was completely averted. Turns out what “the market will bear” is pretty damn high when industries are dominated by 2-3 large companies at most, the government fully supports them, many of the goods (e.g. food) are essential, and consumer spending is helped along with credit.

        There are many things that can be done to resolve this, like the government breaking up these conglomerates. It’s down to greed, pure and simple. In fact, you basically admit this when you say it’s the price rising to the limit that the market will bear, but you sprinkle in “natural” and “the market” to abstract away the fact that these massive corporations are putting the squeeze on people.

  • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I didn’t need a study to tell you that. In my industry the costs of all my goods are up roughly 30% since 2020, but my margins have gotten thinner at the same time so my revenue somehow managed to magically remain exactly the same. And it’s no coincidence, I’m sure, that the manufacturers are the ones who determine the Minimum Advertising Price I’m supposed to be selling at.

    If that 30% number sounds awfully familiar, you’ll find it in the linked article. So, profits for megacorporations rose 30%, and my costs rose 30%, too. Gee, will you look at that. Those two numbers are the same. That’s a fuckin’ puzzler, isn’t it?

    So some asshole somewhere in that supply chain pyramid is making a lot of money off of this “inflation” excuse, and it sure as hell isn’t me.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      82
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It’s because there hasn’t been any meaningful anti trust enforcement for decades. Every industry is basically an oligopoly at this stage, so they can set whatever price they want, because they know their competitors will do the same (because they face the exact same pressures from the exact same shareholders to increase profits).

      If it was a free market, you could’ve found a different supplier, but obviously there was no alternative, or you would’ve done just that.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        72
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Oligopolies that run both horizontally and vertically up the supply chain.

        This is what happens after decades of mergers and acquisitions in the name of diversification, and corruption of regulators and governments — a small number of multinationals, owned by an even smaller number of oligarchs, reach a point of control where it is relatively easy to collude with the handful of others that collectively own 90% of every market and sector, and operate as a functional monopoly.

        It’s the OPEC-ification of the entire global economy. We’re all hostages to the economic terrorists of capitalism.

        • Benjaben@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          11 months ago

          Great comment, sincerely - completely nails it. My only nitpick (and only delivered cuz you clearly care) is I don’t think it should be called terrorism.

          Terrorism, as hate-fueled and damaging as it is, at least has an ethos, an organizing principle, a (generally twisted, but coherent) morality. These monsters have nothing so human to stand behind. As you know, it’s nothing more complicated than “fuck every life on earth but mine, for no reason more compelling than that I want even more stuff”. Terrorists actually compare favorably against that.

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

        free markets build monopolies, the only reason we are only at oligopoly is that we still have some regulation on the market (that inherently makes it not free btw)

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        In almost all cases I buy manufacturer direct. You are correct that there is no alternate supplier.

        The only viable plan B is to start my own manufacturing company and make my own damn products, which is a capital expense I strongly suspect most players in my industry will not be able to afford. I certainly can’t.

    • jopepa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m sure you get to be the grief sponge from people upset about higher costs and lower quality, too. I had the hardest time getting Levi’s to honor a warranty for two pairs of jeans that fell apart after three months. The whole time I was getting more frustrated with the company while feeling terrible for their customer service meat shields who weren’t allowed to resolve it.

  • notannpc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Literally anyone with a functioning brain already knew this. And yet, there will be no penalty for this bullshit.

    • spaduf@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Eh with how this conversation has been evolving lately I’d say this is the worst time to be pessimistic about the possibility of regulation. Is a good time to be loud and angry about it tho

  • DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    11 months ago

    Oh no, this is such a shock. No shit they were lying about inflation. Those bastards were reporting record highs while the average Joe was struggling to pay rent.

    • AlfredEinstein@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The egg producers already have.

      The “bird flu” was nowhere significant enough to cause the price spike on its own. It was an attempt to determine “what the market will allow”. And it turns out people can do without eggs quite comfortably.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        They just went too far too fast and found out they aren’t the staple they thought they were. They also didn’t have enough market penetration when some stores had protected supply lines and did not raise their egg price.

  • ForestOrca@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    The beginnings of a list:
    “The biggest perpetrators were energy companies like Shell, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron, which were able to enjoy massive profits last year”
    If you can find any way to go electric, use petrol less, ride a bike, walk, use a train, avoid a plane, etc, go for it. Prolly the petrol corps won’t notice your individual actions, but the carbon you’ll keep out of the atmosphere might just help to keep our planet’s ecosphere viable.

    The Study itself: INFLATION, PROFITS AND MARKET POWER TOWARDS A NEW RESEARCH AND POLICY AGENDA - https://www.ippr.org/files/2023-12/1701878131_inflation-profits-and-market-power-dec-23.pdf - Jeebus, 32 pages!

    • chitak166@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      but the carbon you’ll keep out of the atmosphere might just help to keep our planet’s ecosphere viable.

      This is only if nations stop burning oil even if it’s cheap.

      Nations aren’t going to stop burning oil until it’s too expensive.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s why oil should have the cost of climate change and healthcare from pollution added to it. If oil was as expensive as the true cost, we’d have ditched it decades ago.

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I totally agree, but the people we put in power don’t care about the true cost because we don’t.

          Collectively speaking, anyways.

    • mechoman444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      I drive electric and in my home state of Georgia, USA they have an ad valorem tax of 239 dollars or there abouts for people that drive Evs and plug in hybrids.

      My theory is that they’re missing out on the taxes I would normally pay if I bought gas and need to recoup their losses.

      • NABDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

        My theory is that they’re missing out on the taxes I would normally pay if I bought gas and need to recoup their losses.

        I don’t think you need to refer to that as a theory. Taxes on fuel for motor vehicles go towards road maintenance. Vehicles that drive on the roads but don’t burn gas or diesel, don’t pay their share of the road maintenance costs. That’s why states want to tax EVs.

      • this@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I used to live in Texas and they did the same shit there. Tax EVs more because their owners weren’t “paying their fair share on the highway tax”

      • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m biased because I’m a scientist, but verifying observations and assumptions through empirical methods is typically a good thing. A lot of people believe “common sense” things that are completely wrong, e.g., that lightning never strikes twice, evolution has some sort of goal in mind, to never go to bed angry, etc.

        • leviathan3k@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Seriously.

          There is always the chance of entering a discussion with someone who disagrees with your “obvious” assertions and also may have the ability to change something. It is always good for someone to actually go and look to prove your point with real verifiable evidence instead of just going “well obviously I’m right” and ending it there.

          • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Totally. We thought my thesis was a slam dunk because it was all microbial common sense type stuff. It turned out everything we assumed would be correct was wrong, so I wrote my defense to inform future scientists in the same field what not to look into.

          • SoleInvictus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Hypothetical situation time. You and your SO have an unresolved disagreement and are very angry at each other. It’s late and you’re both exhausted from a long day. You have two primary options: try to resolve it now or wait until you’re better rested.

            Assuming all of these things are true, I (and my therapist) would suggest attempting to resolve it immediately gives you the greatest likelihood of an unproductive conversation that goes off the rails and pisses everyone off even more. Waiting until both parties are better rested gives you the best chance of a productive, mutually beneficial conclusion since your mental faculties will perform better…but you’ll be going to bed angry.

            Anecdotally, my wife and I go to bed angry at each other on occasion. We’ve both learned to put shit on pause and get back to it later, sometimes days later, because intellectually we know we love each other and waiting will lead to a better conclusion, even if emotionally we’re just two dumb apes who really want to throw down.

            • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Ahh, context of the original “Don’t go to bed angry.” would have made this a little more obvious. I was thinking it had something to do with people believing that going to bed angry over something was somehow physically bad for you.

        • mechoman444@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I generally agree with you. It’s important to do these things.

          But companies over charging then crying iNfLaTiOn is basically the same as water being wet at this point.

    • Muffi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      They will tell you it’s because of the increase in wages, and then refuse to believe the data when you show them that wages have stagnated.

    • Fox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Surely it’s not the shambolic government monetary policy of the same period, the companies were just being way greedier than normal. This study was run by the IMF.

  • Im14abeer@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    11 months ago

    So you’re telling me it doesn’t cost twice as much to make and ship charcoal. It doesn’t cost three times as much to grow a head of lettuce? Those sneaky snooks who make house paint have some 'splaining to do too.

  • EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    11 months ago

    The title of this post might as well be “Water is wet, the sky is blue, ice is cold”

    Of course corporations are lying to have a reason to raise prices when they don’t need to.

    • Quadhammer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      “Hey maybe we should hold corps accountable and stop letting them influence politics–”

      “NO. BYDUN”

    • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      They will raise it to whatever people will pay. Always. I don’t understand why anyone would even consider what they claim they did it for. They did it for more money, which is exactly what I would do if I ran a for profit business too. If I wanted to help people out of the goodness of my heart, I’d volunteer at a food bank, not start a grocery chain.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    11 months ago

    I want a well curated list of the worst offenders so I can figure out who to stop giving my money to.

  • Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    In a market that expects infinite growth in a finite reality, I can assure you that I’m not the least bit surprised that companies are using “inflation” as an excuse to gouge their customers for what increasingly little they have