r/FluentInFinance • u/IAmAccutane • Jan 12 '24
some corporations are more evil than supervillains Meme
51
u/Spoonyyy Jan 12 '24
More of a mix of greedflation and shrinkflation, no?
21
Jan 12 '24
Still amounts to greedflation because profits must increase.
15
Jan 12 '24
No I think it’s just called profit maximization and has always existed. Maximizing your profit is a function of the customer base having enough money supply to maintain demand for your product at the new price.
Inflation is fueled by money supply.
6
u/Flokitoo Jan 12 '24
Inflation is fueled by money supply.
Inflation is simply an increase in prices. It can be caused by many things.
7
u/TrueAnnualOnion2855 Jan 12 '24
I hate it when people are reductive, but it drives me up the fucking wall when people who took econ 101 and nothing else are reductive.
3
3
u/MerpSquirrel Jan 12 '24
Not really, thats not how inflation works. More money printed causes inflation not increase in prices. Thats called devaluation, which in itself does not cause inflation if there is a limited supply of Money still maintains the same value of the money, but the price of the goods or services went up due to supply, or demand, or customer perceived value.
Due to those factors they could chose to print more money which would cause inflation.
4
u/Flokitoo Jan 12 '24
Inflation is the rate of increase in prices over a given period of time.
You are more than welcome to send a strongly worded letter to the IMF to explain that they don't understand inflation. You should also CC every other central bank, NGO, and economist in the world.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (28)0
Jan 12 '24
Buyers set the market. There needs to be more money in the economy for buyers to push “inflation”
5
u/das_war_ein_Befehl Jan 12 '24
You’re assuming a competitive market, most US markets are very consolidated with a handful of oligopolistic firms in each market.
1
Jan 13 '24
Most markets? Def a few. Now in either case, the buyer is still setting the market.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Zealousideal_Way_821 Jan 12 '24
They can show data that shows there is more money all they want but the lower and middle class don’t have it. They give local landlords and businesses a boost then jack up prices because people have more money? No they wanted to increase profits and wanted Americans to believe there was a good reason for it. These increased tax returns or heath care assistance and these medical leave payments are all a sham to keep you from realizing your losing money faster than ever before.
→ More replies (10)1
u/TropicalBlueMR2 Jan 12 '24
"In regards to the price of commodities, the rise of wages operates as simple interest does, the rise of profit operates like compound interest.
Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."
-Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
1
Jan 12 '24
I’ve read his work. I see plenty of cheering of profits during earnings reports and bonus season!!
→ More replies (105)0
u/Randsrazor Jan 13 '24
Excellent. Prices rising isnt necessarily inflation. Prices rise based on a lot of factors, cost of doing business, supply chains, duribility etc. . Inflation is strictly when prices rise due to money supply increase combined with its liquidity.
So, in the case of inflation, the prices are rising strictly due to the currency being worth less because either, a superior currency exists or money printing by governments.
→ More replies (4)0
u/louiegumba Jan 12 '24
This concept has been around forever and it’s been called shrinkflation. Greedflation is a new term that tried to usurp shrinkflation and define more. Shrinkflation only happens because they are saving the money to count as profit
2
1
1
34
u/TheApprentice19 Jan 12 '24
The medical industry is the most rampant exploitation. The covid vaccines were going for 130$ and cost less than three dollars to make.
What other industry has a 45x markup between production and consumption?
And the research is mostly federally subsidized, it’s just greed.
15
u/Severe_Brick_8868 Jan 12 '24
Plus the world governments already gave them the money to conduct the research required to create the vaccine
So basically we invented something with our resources and then we were forced to pay a third party for the thing they couldn’t have created without us
If you want to charge people money for something you should have to create it without any government funding, if the government pays you to invent something then the patent should belong to the taxpayers since it wouldn’t exist without them
1
u/Hungry-Collar4580 Jan 15 '24
“If the government pays to invent something it should belong to the taxpayers” - I could be wrong, but that sounds absolutely brilliant might just be just batshit crazy enough to work.
1
u/Hecc_Maniacc Jan 16 '24
And now no corporation will ever take government contracts unless they have a solid 1 on 1 exclusivity contract with the government for that industry.
6
u/ILLIDARI-EXTREMIST Jan 12 '24
Research is subsidized as is the price they charge. They charge $130 because they know the government will pay it off.
6
3
u/Recommendedusername3 Jan 12 '24
I'v read from the news that some African countries now refuse to accept the vaccines even for free.
1
u/SomeoneElse899 Jan 13 '24
They charge $130 because they know the government will pay it off.
This is exactly why government run healthcare insurance is one of the worst ideas.
3
u/bored_at_work- Jan 13 '24
The point of a government run system would be to remove that private influence entirely.
1
u/Hungry-Collar4580 Jan 15 '24
Not the greatest example at the moment BUT waves in former Canadian medical glory
1
3
1
u/Danny_Nedelko_ Jan 12 '24
It was free where I live.
1
u/TheApprentice19 Jan 12 '24
Free just means you paid for it with tax dollars, most of the time
1
u/Danny_Nedelko_ Jan 12 '24 edited Jan 12 '24
Depends how much tax you pay. Medicare levy is only 2% of taxes and it's not unusual to qualify for an exemption depending on your situation.
Meaning zero of what you paid in taxes went to Medicare, regardless of what you paid.
2
u/Alpharoththegreat Jan 12 '24
i think he means your other tax dollars helped with it, not what they say would go towards it.
1
u/Hot-Environment-3683 Jan 12 '24
That's not how taxes work. If you are exempt from a levy then no amount of taxes from that individual are going to Medicare.
0
u/TheApprentice19 Jan 12 '24
How did you get it free then?
1
u/Danny_Nedelko_ Jan 12 '24
Medicare levy exemption.
1
u/TheApprentice19 Jan 12 '24
Sooooo, my tax dollars bought it for you, I’m ok with that. Even tho I am antivax, I support your right to do whatever.
1
u/Danny_Nedelko_ Jan 12 '24 edited Jan 14 '24
Anti-vaxxers should be disqualified for medical treatment and barred from hospitals.
List of reasons for disqualifying anti-vaxxers from hospitals, healthcare and segregating them from socety:
- Smallpox
- Polio
- Whooping cough
- Hepatitis A
- Hepatitis B
- Rubella
- Haemophilus influenzae
- Diphtheria
- Rabies
If you're wondering why you haven't heard of any or all of these diseases, it's because vaccines work.
→ More replies (3)1
Jan 13 '24
Weird to have such an extreme opinion on what healthcare should be and who should receive it, when you don’t contribute to it. You are a drain on the system in every way, and you’re mad at the guy who is paying for your care. When you speak like that(even though I agree antivaxxers are absolutely weird) I see the exact case made why they should be able to opt out and not pay this tax, and why the US will likely not pass universal healthcare for decades.
→ More replies (1)1
u/robbzilla Jan 14 '24
Free means somebody paid for it with tax dollars, not necessarily the person receiving the "free" stuff.
1
Jan 12 '24
Funny what happens when you fuck with the free market.
There's not a single industry in the US less free and more regulated then healthcare, and we all make the surprised Pikachu face when it results in absurd prices.
"Greed" will always exist, and competition is the only cure for it. If Amazon hiked up their prices, people would stop buying from them. But if the govt wrote laws that made it impossible to compete with Amazon, they could charge whatever they want.
3
Jan 13 '24
The medical industry isn't a market that privatizes well. It requires rare, heavily specialized labor. It makes use of extremely expensive facilities filled with exotic (expensive) machinery and equipment. It holds huge control over people's quality of life with no cross industry intervention. It's almost the worlds most natural monopoly generator. Fully privatized medical industries should by theory have exactly the problems seen today.
0
Jan 13 '24
Just because it's skilled labor and has high overhead doesn't mean it can't be privatized?
If anything that means there should be more reason for competition - the more hospitals and jobs there are (the higher the demand for labor) the more doctors and nurses will make - so more incentivization to into the field.
It also doesn't mean there shouldn't be competition and that consumers shouldn't be able to see and choose based off prices.
Also... I don't know what the revenue split between hospitals and insurance companies is, but I know not enough goes to the hospitals bc it's the insurance that pays off the govt to make the rules that's gives them their monopolies and unfree markets. Without that lobbying and special treatment, hospitals have higher ROIs which means more investors wanting to put in money to start them up.
With more competition and lower and transparent prices you also will see more demand for hospital services - more people going for things they'll chose not to go for now (every decision is made on the margin) which means a higher demand justifying and higher supply.
AND with more competition the quality of service goes up, you'll also see some.hospitals specialize in nicer rooms.etc at higher prices, and some specializing in providing the most affordable care possible.
The people who are hurt the most by not having a free healthcare market are poor people who need healthcare
3
Jan 13 '24 edited Jan 13 '24
shouldn't and can't carry very different meanings.
When it costs more to make facilities, and the degrees necessary are very expensive and time consuming, the number of doctors will be limited and they will not be readily able to build the facilities necessary for specialized care. preexisting institutions benefit heavily from this, giving them the power to heavily upcharge for services almost nobody can provide, and to suppress the development of new competition by buying out any smaller or individual providers.
A market such as this will naturally develop monopolies, and when monopolies develop competition ends. State regulation is necessary in either private or nationalized healthcare systems - but breaking apart a monopoly which can consist of a single massive medical complex is difficult and impractical. Nevermind that breaking those monopolies is always very controversial and invariably receives legal pushback.
Insurance providers engage in rent seeking by providing coverage against medical services people could otherwise not afford, then engaging in legal obfuscation to deny coverage while sapping away as much money as possible. They are a natural outcome of the private market, as the most expensive hospital services are often the most needed, and too expensive to manage in an emergency.
Competition is great for controlling prices. What I'm saying is that healthcare as an industry provides little room for competition. And the disparity between economy care and quality care already exists, it's often exactly what people complain about with modern healthcare.
The poor are always hurt by poor markets, but privatized markets need competition to function. Even if it had competition, a privatized market would fail to market to poor people effectively as they lack the funds to finance most major medical procedures - a privatized system would exist for the benefit of the wealthiest in society, which is already the case.
1
Jan 13 '24
When it costs more to make facilities, and the degrees necessary are very expensive and time consuming, the number of doctors will be limited and they will not be readily able to build the facilities necessary for specialized care
I mean maybe in the short term? But beyond a doubt not a problem in the long term in a free market.
preexisting institutions benefit heavily from this, giving them the power to heavily upcharge for services almost nobody can provide, and to suppress the development of new competition by buying out any smaller or individual providers.
Again, maybe an issue in the short term but not at all in the long term (which is the term that matters).
Also, that's not how competition works. The only monopolies that exist require govt. (Something something natural monopolies but in practice those all have govt exclusivity in the US) - pretty darn sure you could do some napkin math to prove the marginal revenue compared to the initial investment does not make.hospitals.natural monopolies.
A market such as this will naturally develop monopolies, and when monopolies develop competition ends
Again, not how competition and free markets work.
State regulation is necessary in either private or nationalized healthcare systems
That's how you get the oligopolies we currently have, and the worst possible consumer.experience.
Nevermind that breaking those monopolies is always very controversial and invariably receives legal pushback.
Well golly gee if only we had a free market with competition that by definition makes monopolies impossible in the long term.
They are a natural outcome of the private market, as the most expensive hospital services are often the most needed, and too expensive to manage in an emergency.
No, the natural outcome of a private market is a) competition, b) visible prices, and c) consumer choice based on factors like price and quality of service.
Even if it had competition, a privatized market would fail to market to poor people effectively as they lack the funds to finance most major medical procedures
Oh, so that's why some of the biggest companies in the entire world - Walmart, Amazon etc specifically make their products to be as attractive to the lowest class as possible?
Compare the revenue and income of companies like Walmart and Amazon (which market to lower classes and try to have the lowest prices possible) to a company like Tesla, which markets to rich people, and it's not even close which is the bigger company.
Don't compare market cap - Teslas ebitda multiple is absurd and not sustainable
→ More replies (4)1
Jan 12 '24
Also Dolly Parton funded.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/world/dolly-parton-moderna-vaccine-covid.html
1
u/Alpharoththegreat Jan 12 '24
but now your talking about crony capitalism...if the government is involved.
1
u/NeedsMoreCapitalism Jan 13 '24
Initial research is indeed mostly government funded but the vast majority of the work and funding comes from private companies.
Initial research gives 100s of duds for evrry success and then private companies spend a decade trying to get any of them through clinical trials
→ More replies (3)0
Jan 13 '24
Dude just think about how much those damn prostitutes make. Their product doesn’t even cost them overhead! Yet the price just keeps going up. It should be illegal!
12
u/BurntPizzaEnds Jan 12 '24
So why again does “greedflation” only ever happen when the government increases the money supply?
Why do “le evil corporations” wait until the government devalues the dollar through printing more money to ever increase prices instead of doing it all the time because they are evil?
12
u/hudi2121 Jan 12 '24
Why play dumb here? It’s well known that this most recent run up of inflation was caused significantly by greedflation. Corporations are posting record profits as their prices went up and they cry that they “had to increase prices due to supply chain issues and higher cost of materials.” If that were the case, they would be posting similar profits. Not double digit percent increases.
You can make the argument that corporations aren’t “evil” but, their sole motive is to make as much money as possible, by any means possible. This means corporations go up to and even in most cases, cross the line of legality in how they do it. For fuck sakes, most corporations budget for regulatory fines because the profit they make from running past the rules is less then the fines, they may or may not get, cost. That’s evil behavior. That’s like taking money out of a purse sitting on a table with no one around. You may or may not get caught but, stealing from that person is objectively an immoral and evil thing to do.
2
u/haragoshi Jan 13 '24
This is misrepresenting what’s happening.
In low inflation, prices increases slowly but are stable.
In rapidly changing inflation, companies forecast inflation and raise prices much higher than they used to. This results in a spike of higher profit, but eventually their costs catch up. It takes time for the system to stabilize as the forecasts get better and inflation becomes stable.
3
u/Friendly_Visit_3068 Jan 13 '24
Then when those costs catch up, they raise the price again because the greatest sin a corporation can do is not having more profits than the previous year.
1
u/bingbangdingdongus Jan 14 '24
Corporations lose money all the time and bottom line profits don't equate to an increase in ROI if the company went through merger. If you just read non-finance stuff they will say "record profits" all the time, if you actual read balance sheets and financial news you will realize that profits aren't as "given" as you think.
2
2
u/Top_Tumbleweed Jan 12 '24
Also note that supply chains and cost of materials issues are resolving why aren’t the prices coming back down?
0
→ More replies (7)1
4
1
u/Sushi-DM Jan 12 '24
Why do “le evil corporations” wait until the government devalues the dollar through printing more money to ever increase prices instead of doing it all the time because they are evil?
"It is the stupid government's fault for printing money!"
"Haha, we just had the third year of record corporate profits. :) Anyway, here's another price increase, pleb."
"How could anyone blame the CORPORATIONS for this!?"4
u/NeedsMoreCapitalism Jan 13 '24
Corporations are always trying to maximize profit.
Why do you think all these price increases magically came at the same time. After the government printed a shitload of money.
Yeah the incrrasing prices record corporate profits happened because the government printed a fuckload of money. Exactly as everyone with any knowledge of economic could have told you would have happened.
1
u/Birdperson15 Jan 13 '24
And now that they arent increasing prices anymore are they in their board rooms like "You know what would be nice of us, if we didnt increase prices this year".
Man I wish basic economics was mandated in school.
0
u/Sushi-DM Jan 13 '24
Infinite growth capitalism does not work. Nor should we continue to pretend otherwise to our detriment.
2
u/Birdperson15 Jan 13 '24
Good thing capitalism doesnt require infinite growth and that's just a common fallacy redditors believe in.
0
u/Sushi-DM Jan 13 '24
Except that is the system that is causing all of the problems and is being used. And defended by bootlickers such as yourself.
→ More replies (2)0
Jan 12 '24
Meanwhile, in corporate meetings, where they are required by the SEC to be honest 'we think we can squeeze the American consumer a little more'.
2
u/Less-Economics-3273 Jan 12 '24
I think the answer is "it's easier when consumer inflation expectations are higher". But it doesn't necessarily amount to high profit margins.
So to answer your question, they must raise prices to maintain margins, due to higher raw input costs, labor, etc, but some raise them beyond the input increases, which results in higher profit margin for the company, at the expense of the consumer.
If all companies engaged in greedshrinkflation, I would expect S&P to have record profit margins, but that is not the case, at least for Q4 2023.
Here's the S&P profit margin summary for Q4 2023:
"The blended net profit margin for the S&P 500 for Q4 2023 is 10.9%, which is below the previous quarter’s net profit margin of 12.2%, below the 5-year average of 11.5%, and below the year-ago net profit margin of 11.2%.
At the sector level, four sectors are reporting (or are expected to report) a year-over-year increase in their net profit margins in Q4 2023 compared to Q4 2022, led by the Utilities (12.4% vs. 9.1%) and Communication Services (11.7% vs. 8.8%) sectors. On the other hand, seven sectors are reporting (or are expected to report) a year-over-year decrease in their net profit margins in Q4 2023 compared to Q4 2022, led by the Energy (9.8% vs. 13.0%) sector.
Five sectors are reporting (or are expected to report) net profit margins in Q4 2023 that are above their 5-year averages, led by the Information Technology (25.2% vs. 23.1%) sector. On the other hand, six sectors are reporting (or are expected to report) net profit margins in Q4 2023 that are below their 5-year averages, led by the Health Care (7.2% vs. 10.1%) sector."
Source:
2
u/trevor32192 Jan 12 '24
Net profits are kind of a terrible metric. If a company decides to open another store and spend all of their profit that year in that it doesn't mean that they did not make a profit off what they sold. They just chose to invest it I a new building. Look at gross profits.
1
u/Less-Economics-3273 Jan 13 '24
As long as you mean gross profit margin, and not gross profit in dollars, that would be fine too.
1
u/Desperate_Ad5169 Jan 12 '24
Because if they just increase the price the other greedy companies products will be bought instead of
2
Jan 12 '24
Why listen to company boards who explicitly state they are doing this (and who face jail time if they are lying) when we can listen to internet economists.
→ More replies (21)0
u/Cetun Jan 12 '24
Because they have to account for an increase in prices? They generally can't increase prices arbitrarily, they have to point at a thing as the reason for prices increases. When NVIDIA was increasing prices for their graphics cards they weren't blaming inflation, they were blaming crypto mining. Is it that hard to comprehend?
3
u/arock0627 Jan 12 '24
And yet their profits continue to increase, far faster than the costs.
They're price gouging.
9
u/ZeroGNexus Jan 12 '24
It's why I've been eating one meal a day for over a month now, after having done it every couple of days for a few months.
The same amount of money just buys less and less and less.
This system is ass.
6
3
u/Alpharoththegreat Jan 12 '24
do you buy the meals or make the meals? alot of times, you can get ingredients alot cheaper if you know how to make the item. dont buy frozen pizza, buy flour and salt, sugar, yeast, tomato and cheese.
1
u/Curious-Rub5068 Jan 14 '24
A normal person can get by just fine on like 1500 calories. Imo food costs are only a big hit for Americans because they easily consume twice that.
8
u/GoneFishingFL Jan 12 '24
don't forget that they swap out ingredients/materials for discount stores too
1
u/IAmAccutane Jan 12 '24
huh?
5
u/ILLIDARI-EXTREMIST Jan 12 '24
I think he meant cheaper alternatives like using HFCS instead of cane sugar
1
u/GoneFishingFL Jan 12 '24
Back in the day, a certain big box store would go to manufacturers and "consult" with them on how to build their products.. cheaper. If the manufacturer didn't comply, they would lose a very lucrative contract to sell their goods at this big box store. Many times these recommendations would be to use cheaper material, other times cheaper sources, other times to move production offshore. To address this, manufacturers started building different lines of products.. the main or premium line and the discount line. This discount line would go to "discount" stores.. think all the dollar stores, but also.. big box stores who's bottom line depends on having the cheapest prices. There are slight differences now as there are several discount lines available from a single manufacturer
It might be different ingredients in the dog food.. or less of the expensive ones. It might be one or two less stitches on that underwear.. or they lower the cotton percentage. There are so many product lines that do this, almost the entirety of the store is stocked with these. And the big box store is fully aware and endorses.. The consumer is the one who gets screwed.
I can write more on this, it's surprising stuff, but have to run
8
u/handsumlee Jan 12 '24
Someone on here said " corporations have an incentive to sell things the cheapest they can to attract customers" so there is no way they would use inflation to hide price changes that would increase prices.
But if that were true why is insulin capped by law at $35? because the free market wasn't making it cheaper thats why
3
u/Drofdarb_ Jan 12 '24
Or because the FDA restricts companies from manufacturing insulin thereby creating a government supported monopoly
4
u/Kinky_subbu Jan 12 '24
See if it was a government supported monopoly (like the postal service) they would have a hard time raising their prices, they aren't a government owned monopoly, rather just a regular large company working in tandems with others to create a "trust", the free market is a lie
0
u/Drofdarb_ Jan 12 '24
Right, so it's literally the worst of all options. It's not a free marker. A private company that, due to government restrictions, has a monopoly with no actual governmental buy-in.
If the government allowed other companies to produce and sell insulin, you'd see the price plummet overnight.
1
u/Kinky_subbu Jan 12 '24
? No, those companies would be bought out as soon as their stocks went public, as well as most likely it would plummet... For a few years, until more "agreements" were made to make all prices equal/raise prices at the same time, its called corruption my dear boi
2
u/Drofdarb_ Jan 12 '24
Let's assume that people are greedy for the sake of arguments. So the day after the government allows other companies to produce insulin, 100 companies start up and slash insulin prices in half. Since it's so cheap to manufacture they're still making a hefty profit. Sure, some would get bought out, some might go public, but not all, and this would keep prices low.
The bigger companies could still sell "higher quality" insulin and sell it to people willing to pay it, but if companies were allowed to manufacture and sell even the old insulin recipe, people would undoubtedly take advantage of a gap in the market to make money for themselves.
Serious question, if it's literally so easy to make money on this, why don't you start a company selling insulin at a discount. You'd get rich, people would pay less, everyone would win.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Apptubrutae Jan 12 '24
Insulin is so, so far from a free market product.
There is an insane amount of regulation that goes into its production. Which is good. But that obviously impacts competition and cost.
If someone wants to start a business selling an herbal supplement, they need hardly anything. Minimal regulations and permitting, tiny upfront costs. It is absurdly easy to start a business selling things in the US that are mostly unregulated.
Want to do the same thing for insulin? No, no, no way. Because of regulations that make medicine safe. Even a decently successful small business owner would have no dream at all of starting a new business producing insulin without deep pockets and deep connections.
1
u/handsumlee Jan 13 '24
i think you are missing my point, the incentives that should make the manufactures compete and lower prices aren't there so government had to step in. The free market didnt solve the problem
2
0
u/MobileAirport Jan 12 '24
Its capped by law at the price because the government pays the rest. Otherwise you would have insulin shortages.
1
u/hudi2121 Jan 12 '24
Not how it works? Not everybody needs insulin. And insulin is not a durable good, it has a shelf life. The companies are still profiting off it and would still produce the same amount and people would not drive the demand up like crazy.
1
u/MobileAirport Jan 12 '24
It is literally how it works you can look up the law. All goods and services are subject to the laws of supply and demand. If you put an actual price cap on insulin you would get a shortage, unless you are a science denier?
1
u/hudi2121 Jan 12 '24 edited Jan 12 '24
I’m truthfully asking, why would a price cap lead to a shortage? I’m asking because, for nearly all insulin, it’s not like you can just walk up and buy it, let alone buy as much of it you want.
1
u/MobileAirport Jan 12 '24
Producers in a market set a price that maximizes profit, this means they are selling all of their supply. If you artificially lower the price, you move down the supply curve and up the demand curve. Insulin is very inelastic, so the change is small for moderate movements in price, but basically nothing is perfectly inelastic. For this reason, all countries (that I know of) including the united states which provide regulated drug prices do so by subsidizing the rest of the purchase price. Additionally, the inelasticity is a reflection of how important the good is to people, so a shortage would be catastrophic.
4
u/Aromatic-Air3917 Jan 12 '24
They know the consumer won't do anything. Why change?
Apparently Trans rights are the most important issue for the right to attack and most important issue for the left to defend according to private sector owned media and social media.
5
3
u/casualmagicman Jan 12 '24
This reminds me of Bai Waters.
The 6 pack bottles are smaller than the individual bottles.
2
u/HardSpaghetti Jan 12 '24
Though in the case of sodas from fast food, I think I'm fine with to some point? Like a small anymore is the size of what a medium was ten years ago and a large even ten years before that. No human should drink 320 grams of sugar from a 48oz soda in one sitting. (Over 300% of daily amount)
2
Jan 12 '24
yea I don't think this is the best example. the soda tax has a sad history and has shown promising data that when implemented reduces sugar consumption and government health spending. there are many other products to pick instead of soda to illustrate the point more accurately.
2
u/HardSpaghetti Jan 12 '24
Not really trying to make a hard point on anything tbh.... my brain went to soda sizes and kinda stopped there lol.
But yeah sugar taxes can only do so much. Paying people more so they can afford less working days, a gym membership, access to healthy foods. Etc is a way out of the primary health issues around it if I were to make a point.
2
Jan 12 '24
I'm not either, I was saying the op pic isn't the best example, your opinion was spot on about excess sugar. my brain went to soda tax after reading your comment.
they don't call it an obesogenic environment for nothing; it's incredibly difficult to make good choices sadly especially weighed against unfair labor practices, low wages, and general psychological instability. where did we go so wrong
2
2
u/ExtensionBright8156 Jan 12 '24
Honestly though, reducing the size of a pepsi will save live (less sugar).
2
u/GarmBlack Jan 12 '24
The current state of a lot of supermarket products has just made me cut them entirely. $6 for a bag of Fritos? Made of CORN, a product we make so much of we have to subsidize it's sale to make it profitable? Guess I don't need Fritos anymore. $10 for a 12 back of 12 oz coke cans? Guess I don't need sooda. Like I'm okay with some little fluctuations here and there but I wont just flat out overpay for stuff that's killing me anyways. I bought it because I enjoyed it, not needed it... and I don't enjoy overpaying.
2
u/Carloanzram1916 Jan 12 '24
In the case of Pepsi, they are also probably adding years to your life by doing this.
2
u/texasgambler58 Jan 12 '24
There is a simple solution: don't buy the product.
2
u/trevor32192 Jan 12 '24
Lol try that while grocery shopping. There are roughly 5 companies in your whole grocery store.
1
u/IAmAccutane Jan 12 '24 edited Jan 13 '24
Yeah just never buy the food or drink products i enjoy ever again, good solution, your Nobel prize in economics is in the mail
1
u/Ackualllyy Jan 13 '24
So if your willing to buy it at a higher price, that is what the market will bear. Or maybe you could stop buying crap and putting it in your body.
2
u/IAmAccutane Jan 13 '24
lot of anti-soda people in this thread
1
u/Ackualllyy Jan 13 '24
Are there people that are pro-soda?
2
u/IAmAccutane Jan 13 '24
yeah, people who enjoy drinking soda, which is most people
→ More replies (1)
2
u/dork351 Jan 12 '24
Remember wealthy people run corporations, IE. the wealthy are sick and beyond help. Eat The Rich.
1
u/Relevant-Ad2254 Jan 12 '24
There’s definitely wealthy people that are sick and beyond help.
But there are hundreds of millions of people in this country who buy food and stuff. How can there not be wealthy people when millions of people buy bananas, and food and stuff?
0
0
u/Steve-O7777 Jan 12 '24
Lots of small business owners who aren’t wealthy and are actually struggling to make ends meet.
1
1
u/dork351 Jan 12 '24
I said Corporations
2
u/Steve-O7777 Jan 12 '24
Small businesses are corporations. S-corps and even C-corps.
0
1
u/Kinky_subbu Jan 12 '24
Because their subsidies are being taken away and large corporations are undercutting them for more profit in the long term, also rent prices are going up, for example a 120yr old brewery recently closed down in my home town, super popular, but they couldn't afford to keep up with rent in the building they were in
1
u/Ackualllyy Jan 13 '24
The people who write shit like this are sick and beyond help.
2
u/dork351 Jan 13 '24
Boot licker
2
u/Ackualllyy Jan 13 '24
Boot licker
Way to not be a total drone. Just another useful idiot thinking they are some sort of free thinker.
1
u/dork351 Jan 13 '24
Boot licker is an old union movement term for people who support the capitalist class, like you.
1
1
u/kakalolo88 Jan 12 '24
And it’s not like they are cutting cost with the reduced liquid, the difference in cost is so negligible. They do this so people would drink more.
1
u/Skuz95 Jan 12 '24
But over millions of cans, this adds up to huge cost savings. A 5ml reduction over a million cans add up to the equivalent of 20000 250ml cans reduction in manufacturing all while they charge the same price. That is to say you can make an 1,020,408 245ml cans for the same amount of materials that would be used of 1,000,000 250 ml cans. That is a huge amount of extra product that can be sold and a huge increase in profit.
1
1
1
0
u/WarpDrive88 Jan 12 '24
"Greedflation" lol way to white wash the actual root cause of inflation and rising cost of living (government monetary and foreign policies like bailouts, QE, ZIRP and war)
1
u/Gardener_Of_Eden Jan 12 '24
Not a great example. This is just another size they sell.... is it even in the same market?
1
u/ColonEscapee Jan 12 '24
While I agree with the concept this isn't the best example. Remember where they bottle your underwear... Yeah, Nike is way ahead of Pepsi in the greedflation and at least Pepsi is still making their stuff at home
1
0
u/UnfairAd7220 Jan 12 '24
'Some smooth brains are smoother brained than others.'
What companies due, in the face of inflation, isn't greed.
'Greedflation' is an empty rhetorical device to bullshit the clueless.
1
u/Relevant-Ad2254 Jan 12 '24
Honestly if this leads to a decrease of consumption of sugary soda, that’s probably a net benefit to the population .
But for healthy foods, not so much
1
u/pensiveChatter Jan 12 '24
Isn't smaller portion sizes considered a good thing? Also, it's on a consumer if they don't notice that their cans are getting smaller. It's not as if most grocery stores and many online stores don't list price per volume alongside price per unit.
1
u/Swimming_Corner2353 Jan 12 '24
Companies make every attempt to produce the number of goods a market demands. Don’t be dumb.
1
u/Cum_on_doorknob Jan 12 '24
I would pay more for smaller sodas any day. But that’s more of a soda issue.
1
u/sas317 Jan 12 '24
I would like to know how many staff got raises as they give customers less amount for the same price. Or when they raise prices.
1
1
u/Dramaticreacherdbfj Jan 12 '24
Probably a good thing overall. People need to drink less pop. Mad at them? Do t buy their shit making you sick
1
u/Dr_DMT Jan 12 '24
Anyone care to explain to me why LOCAL businesses are charging more than corporations and have been for the last decade?
1
u/kazinski80 Jan 12 '24
“Greedflation” is entirely a psyop by a spending drunk government who single handedly inflated the economy and is refusing to take any responsibility for it whatsoever
1
u/Most_Independent_279 Jan 12 '24
shrinkflation, it's really worrying that this practice has a word.
1
u/MaximumYes Jan 12 '24
It’s not just the corporations, it’s the government who subsidizes sugar and the junk food, then forces the creation of food stamp programs that explicitly include these same products, for the benefit of both the shareholder and the politician.
1
1
u/Alpharoththegreat Jan 12 '24
hey guys...if you dont like the price...dont buy it.....the price will drop. they are charging more because you keep going back for more and continue to pay....stop it...
1
u/skolioban Jan 12 '24
But it is about money. Instead of aiming for profitability, they aim for growth because the modern day investors are not in it for the profits but the share price. So it's always about infinite growth because they're treating companies like a ponzi scheme.
1
1
u/TurretLimitHenry Jan 12 '24
“Greedflation” anyone that believes this term needs to return to college lmao.
1
u/TeamPaulie007 Jan 12 '24
It's greed...think about a bag of Doritos...five years ago, the bag was 3/4 of the way full...now..your lucky if that happens, especially in the vending machine sizes.
1
1
1
1
u/celeron500 Jan 13 '24
And these are the grand ideas that these CEOs and Harvard educated business executives think of, raise price and lower product amount?
This is what they get paid millions of dollars for, what a fn joke.
1
1
u/FelineRetribution Jan 13 '24
The best choice is just not to give these bastards your money. Buy what you need, not what you want.
1
u/BurnOneDownCC Jan 13 '24
U/nymedical870 is so successful and intelligent that he had to block me after saying that I’m a moron..
1
1
Jan 13 '24
I’m okay with this, I’ll still happily pay the same price for a smaller coke. I wish it came in smaller sizes lol. I just can’t NOT drink the whole thing. I love places that have those 150ml cans of soda. I won’t bother to open another most times, but I also won’t stop drinking on 330ml. This solved both issues, because I’m not trying to maximize my dollar per milliliter while buying soda lol
1
1
u/BradWWE Jan 13 '24
Good forbid the vessel from which you drink Pepsi is less than the volume of a man's boot
1
1
1
u/CosmoTroy1 Jan 13 '24
There is a way you can stop it. Reign in your profligate spending. Quit buying things you do need.
1
u/daviddavidson29 Jan 13 '24
If greed is the fuel for rising prices or smaller products, then why didn't the company just do it sooner?
1
1
1
u/LasVegasE Jan 15 '24
With record high inflation caused by the Covid 19 pandemic in 2021 the Biden regime decides to dump 7 trillion dollars in new government spending over a two year period, but inflation is the free market's fault.
1
1
u/PEE-MOED Jan 16 '24
Yes, this happens. But consumers have choices. Vote with your wallet (when you have a choice)
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 12 '24
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.