- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
NEW YORK - Writer Jen Singer, the mother of two teenage boys, wrestles with her grocery list every week to keep the household budget from getting away from her."I'd like the government to stop by my house, come food shopping with me and see where the real costs are," she said.
The adage "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" is impossible thanks to apple prices, she said.
snip
It's is not her imagination. While the government says prices are up 6.4 percent since 2011, chicken is up 18.4 percent, ground beef is up 16.8 percent and bacon has skyrocketed up 22.8 percent...
snip
ConvergEx market strategist, Nick Colas, said that mothers could tell the government a lot about inflation.
"Food inflation is far greater than the government thinks it is," he said.
Food prices soar as incomes stand still - CBS News
We to be reasonable we don't want diesel spewing large amounts of sulphur into the air because it is toxic. It think that is perfectly reasonable. Could be much much worse, your food could rely on the cost of avgas. You just have single payer system and that greatly reduces the burden upon employers.
So being unable to afford food is a reasonable alternative?
Should we allow companies to dump waste into rivers and pour large amounts of fumes into the air for cheap goods? Overtime the increase will be nothing, it is not worth the toxic sulphur fumes. Well if you are going to force sulphur onto people maybe they really do need that health insurance. We can't force companies to not dump toxic chemicals into the air because it isn't business friendly.
Ecology and economy are a balancing act, but with food prices rising the way they are, and the quality getting worse and worse, exactly how are the low or fixed income groups supposed to continue eating?
We to be reasonable we don't want diesel spewing large amounts of sulphur into the air because it is toxic.
It think that is perfectly reasonable.
Could be much much worse, your food could rely on the cost of avgas.
You just have single payer system and that greatly reduces the burden upon employers.
Well personally I don't think a 2 cent increase (a rather high estimate) on a box of Kraft Dinner in exchange for less sulphur in the air is unreasonable.
Low sulfur diesel and these ridiculous carbon sequester systems now mandatory on OTR tractors are for the most part junk! I read somewhere that at least 50% of them report problems within the first 100K miles....Just to let you know that is about 6 months, to 10 months of driving....Would you buy a car that broke down within the first month? Plus this raises the cost of doing business....Down time, increased cost to comply with fleet regulations, and price of diesel fuel, all are factors....
You do, do you? Do you realize that although the sulfur content may be lower, and burn cleaner, it lowers the MPG rating by 1% to 2% thus using more fuel? Also, the increased costs because of greater clogging of filters, and more fuel related engine problems cost companies more money, that will be passed along to you?
Not sure what you are talking about here...
Pipe dream, you'll never see that here.
Well personally I don't think a 2 cent increase (a rather high estimate) on a box of Kraft Dinner in exchange for less sulphur in the air is unreasonable.
So a one to two percent increase in fuel distributed among several thousand dollars worth of goods doesn't equal that much on an increase. Avgas is aviation fuel which costs exponentially more than diesel for trucks, what I was pointing out is that there are people who pay 11$ for a box of cheerios due to it and the situation could be much worse. Not to mention here fuel is just more expensive and when I was in the U.S. sticker prices are the same for most things except fresh fruit and cheese.
I have spoken on this several times in the past, and as a truck driver that delivers the bread, and milk that you buy, I can attest to the many factors driving the costs of these items. Much of this inflation is artificially imposed due to factors of outside influences from government, and alike.
1. The price of diesel fuel...."Diesel fuel, the kind of fuel commonly used in commercial trucks, has not always been more expensive than the standard gasoline used in passenger vehicles. On paper at least, diesel fuel is a less refined petroleum distillate than gasoline, so it should always be cheaper to produce than gasoline...
In recent years, the federal government has mandated changes to the acceptable sulfur level of diesel fuel, and refiners must comply with these mandates to create an ultra low sulfur diesel fuel product. This means significant investments in new technology and several distillations before the finished fuel is deemed acceptable by government inspectors. All of these additional regulations and high-tech equipment can cost billions of dollars, and these expenses are often passed onto consumers through higher prices.
There are also higher federal excise taxes placed on diesel fuel compared to standard gasoline. Some critics suggest the federal government is less eager to impose higher taxes on millions of private drivers than thousands of commercial drivers who use a less popular fuel. Part of the reason diesel fuel is more expensive than gas is the total amount of federal and state taxes added to each gallon."
Why is Diesel Fuel More Expensive Than Gasoline?
2. the cost of uncertainty due to Obamacare...."Last week the president, for the second time in about seven months, delayed the employer mandate, which requires medium- and large-sized businesses to offer insurance to employers.The original Jan. 1, 2014, start for the mandate, which requires businesses with 50 to 99 full-time employees to offer the insurance or face a tax penalty, was delayed in July for one year. On Monday, Obama delayed it until 2016."
Republicans: Obama violating Constitution, but little can be done about it | Fox News
In fact, Obama has changed the law something like 27 times without going to congress to do it...If anyone thinks that these trends are business friendly to spurring growth, or lower prices then I have a bridge to sell them....
The bottom line is that the progressive attack on capitalism is going to cost everyone, even those who can't afford it....So in the end, progressivism hurts the people it claims to help the most.
You think people can actually 'survive' on mac n cheese? Virtually no nutritional benefit from that.... so we go back to the vicious circle of poor nutrition, poor health, medical assistance.
Ecology and economy are a balancing act, but with food prices rising the way they are, and the quality getting worse and worse, exactly how are the low or fixed income groups supposed to continue eating?
increase wages?
That was just an example, it would be the same for rice or chicken. It is a negligible difference.
increase wages?
increase wages?
Your theory of increasing wages goes something like this....
Increase wages, food growers have a higher COGs, pickers get paid more, packers get paid more, trucking companies pay their drivers more, grocery stores charge more.......
It's not a long term answer.
Your theory of increasing wages goes something like this....
Increase wages, food growers have a higher COGs, pickers get paid more, packers get paid more, trucking companies pay their drivers more, grocery stores charge more.......
It's not a long term answer.
So being unable to afford food is a reasonable alternative?
So being unable to afford food is a reasonable alternative?
Unable to afford food?
The US as so many people point out is obese, the poor have big screen TV's, cars, fridges (a partial list generated an old post of CpWill. If people have to not buy a bag of chips and some coke, but get cereal instead it is not much of a problem. Last but not least if they are low income they can get food stamps, the Obama phone etc. Except for the very poor, not being able to afford food is not a problem
The reasonable alternative is stop allowing less than 1% of the country to monopolize the vast majority of the wealth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?