He's anally fixated.
Janet Yellen blames Americans' 'splurging' for record-high inflation
- Thread starter Kyle
- Start date
Nope, just on this thread, and some of that was in reference to me. As in, I said "no one I know" and you answered with "haven't you seen all the..".
And here I am getting into it. No one has discussed the point of this thread in almost fifty posts. So until then...
Well if people stopped buying so many groceries, then the price would come down.
Greedy ####s with their eating and drinking!
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. So there is NO ONE ELSE who has commented in this thread that has provided no "facts" or has "dismissed personal anecdotal info?"
You did read the entire thread right?
It's really not that difficult since it is the same people who post in every thread... every day
every hour even.Hmmm. So there is NO ONE ELSE who has commented in this thread that has provided no "facts" or has "dismissed personal anecdotal info?"
You did read the entire thread right?
It's really not that difficult since it is the same people who post in every thread... every day
And this is why I don't get Yellen's statement. I may not be knowledgable about economics, but I'm no idiot and I can see some things, and one is clearly that some things have relatively low increases in cost from year to year, and lots of them have huge increases from year to year.
That's because TECHNICALLY, inflation is measured as a currency attribute. What we all experience as inflation is "technically" something else, except that the result is the same - stuff costs more. In the case of things like groceries and gas - a LOT more.
It's easy for people like you and me to get that if everyone starts buying Cabbage Patch dolls for Christmas, demand is high and supply is low and hence price goes up. Most of us "get" supply and demand. That's not happening however with groceries. People are not buying the hell out of groceries to cause a box of pasta to double in price in a year or a loaf of bread or carton of eggs to go up 50% in the same time period.
So she might be talking about something else - but it translates into - shite that doesn't explain why another 50% of my grocery budget is disappearing. I don't care if the solution is out there on the currency markets - what I care about is what happens in MY household. And I'm no slouch but I can guess that the cost of transporting goods has a LOT to do with their final cost at the store.
Oh for pity's sake, you sound like one of my kids. "What about him?". It's not my job to chastise everyone who dicks around with everyone else.Hmmm. So there is NO ONE ELSE who has commented in this thread that has provided no "facts" or has "dismissed personal anecdotal info?"
You did read the entire thread right?
It's really not that difficult since it is the same people who post in every thread... every day
Just follow your own advice.
They speak to their audience and sell them whatever is politically expedient for them.
Democrats haven't had a clue when it comes to economics since the 1950s.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
Do you think transportation costs are the sole driver of cost increases? The most influential? I agree that global issues (Ukraine, China, etc) are effecting things. One thing is for sure. If history has taught us anything, it is that the prices will NEVER go back to what they were before so the higher costs are here to stay.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
Damn it. Just when I thought you were above it... here we go.
You make an asinine targeted statement. You get called out for said statement. NOW.. you try to say it's not your job to make these statements???
Maybe follow YOUR own advice??
Stop. You were calling someone out for not supporting their argument with facts - something you had done with ME.
And your response was to do the same. NOT use facts.
IF you're going to argue that someone isn't using facts, take the high ground and do it yourself.
If you're stuck on, why don't you call THEM out too, there's really not any point.
I'm done quibbling over words. Otherwise, I plan to stick to the subject.
YES. I think gas and diesel prices are the single most direct cause of the "inflation" the rest of us proles experience.
I do think that Ukraine affects the world market - but not as deeply as is being claimed. This administration has made a cottage industry of the blame game, and the moment I hear ANOTHER entry in the blame game, I'm inclined to ignore it. It's been my meager observation that the oil market has not crashed or been more than a little adjusted by the war.
It just seems to me that the world economy is like someone doing a cannonball in the deep end - it causes ripples, but the body of water tends to absorb it. Over the past couple years, much has been made of different sectors of the world economy, be it soybeans or wheat or whatever, and IMMEDIATELY prices jump up, a bit of chaos ensues, and stability returns as alternatives are found.
It's also been my observation that SOME items return to their old price - because the higher prices seriously injured sales. It's a bad example but - housing. They do go way up and down. When they spike obscenely, they tend to snap back. I've also observed that non-durable goods do tend to find a stable point where they keep the same price, over time. I'm guessing this is because you can keep prices high for something that has a really long shelf-life, but if you're not selling eggs and milk, it goes bad.
TRIPLE the price of insuline, and people will FIND A WAY to pay it. They have to. TRIPLE the price of eggs - and many will just find something else. And the eggs go bad.
What I've never understood - and this is because I don't have the whole picture - is how stuff like chicken, pork, some canned goods, beans, rice - a lot of them have VERY STABLE PRICES going back years. But no so with beef, and certainly not so with fish - I can recall a time in the 60's when it was CHEAPER than meat, and nowadays, it never is. I can remember Johnny Carson nightly making jokes about the rising costs of beef - and it's always more expensive. So - some cuts of chicken - 1 to 3 bucks a pound, exclusing sales. Beef? Good luck.
It may involve stuff I don't know - do we export beef, but not chicken? Are they both subsidized? I have no idea.
Not sure what the deal is with beef increases but it may be heavily based on how long to market for that product. Usually about 18 months, vs 6 months or just weeks for chicken.
The increases in cost of feed, medicine, etc. would accumulate for the larger animals.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
Actually, I called out someone for RUNNIG AWAY whenever they spew opinionated nonsense and are then asked to explain themselves with facts.
As for my interaction with you on this thread.. everything I mentioned regarding the point I was making regarding the OP is extremely common knowledge. Are people still buying new cars? Yep! Are they at inflated prices? Yep! Are people still paying huge amounts of money to attend football, basketball, baseball, and hockey games or concerts? Yep! Common knowledge found literally EVERYWHERE. Do you simply need me to show you data that people have bought new cars this year?? It's not like I am trying to argue the point that people are buying more 1988 Chevy Camaros in the color Red after the month of September!
THAT makes as much sense as anything. One thing about pork and chicken - we use every damned piece of those animals. A lot of beef parts are just refuse.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
I will openly admit that I have researched the correlation however, do you not think that the costs of food and beverages (groceries) has increased in a more dramatic fashion than the cost of fuel at the pump? Do you think it is a delayed response from when prices at the pump were $4.50+?
I am thinking it could be however, I also think there are other factors that are effecting food costs.
At the worst point of inflation in the 70s/80s people were still buying new cars.
They weren't buying anywhere near what they were a decade before, but they were buying them.
Just because a handful are still spending doesn't mean the bulk of the population is too.
They weren't buying anywhere near what they were a decade before, but they were buying them.
Just because a handful are still spending doesn't mean the bulk of the population is too.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
I agree 100%. My argument is that if the inflation is hurting ALL of us so badly, then you would see abysmal to near nothing as far as luxury sales. Apparently, there are still those that have enough for the new cars, luxuries, and inflated prices at the grocery. As long as that is occurring, then the pricing will not change very much.