- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,274
- Reaction score
- 28,084
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
If it still sells and increases your profit is that not a sound business decision? You focus on the "greedy" producer and not the stupid consumer. If these reduced value/quantity products still sell well at the non-reduced price then who is the one responsible for that?
When a valid statement contradicts your belief system, ignore them! Might as well add me to that list....
When a valid statement contradicts your belief system, ignore them! Might as well add me to that list....
This is not the first time I've seen you volunteer to be placed on someone's ignore list. Instead of making a production out of it, why don't YOU ignore people and then everyone is happy. Ya think?
No wonder the average low income North American is ballooning in size when it's more economical to eat at McDonald's than eat at home.
This article may highlight a common practice amongst consumer goods manufacturers; however to relate it to inflation is a bit of a stretch, at best it is statistical noise.
The most common measure of inflation is the CPI, which is an index that measures the change in price of a "market basket" of consumer goods and services; however the methodology used factors out such noise. This is because the index is actually comprised of multiple indexes for multiple categories across multiple areas.
I'm not arguing that what the article says doesn't affect people's wallet over time; however to say that this masks inflation measures isn't accurate. There plenty of other services where you "get more" and "pay less" now, computers for example. The average computer today is cheaper and more powerful and with more gizmos included than a decade ago.
Do you support a pigouvian tax on all non-whole foods, e.g. flour, water, milk, meat, cheese, non-concentrate juice, etc... would not invoke a sales tax where as Hungry Man, Oreo's, Kool-Aid, Mt. Dew, etc... would face a 10% sales tax?
I do support a reduction in, or elimination of, taxes on whole foods - here in Toronto, where I live, there is no tax on such foods while there is tax on some prepackaged meals and ready to each foods in multiple serving packages. There also is tax on "snack" foods that are not nutritionally beneficial. We have a GST - goods and services tax - which is basically a value added tax so the more processed a product, the more tax it carries up the production line.
Another instance where Canada is ahead of the curve.
Never fear, the apologists always come out with some excuse to show that you are not really getting less quality than you used to pay for...it'll all come right in the end. Of course you are still paying for cheap crap with essentially worthless money so it's all good right?
Perhaps, but we're still just as "curvy" as our American breathren.
The specific reasons for the increase in obesity among Native Americans have not been determined, although it has been hypothesized that Native Americans have a genetic predisposition to overweight in a westernized environment of abundant food and decreased energy expenditure.
I've been buying groceries on a regular basis for about 40 years and I've witness virtually every product shrink in size in order to maintain its price-point on the shelf. And if you ever see something that's "New and Improved", rest assured that it's reduced in size - another good scam is "Concentrated" when it comes to laundry detergent, etc.
While fast food and other restaurant meals get "jumboed" up, real or made-at-home meals get more expensive to put together. No wonder the average low income North American is ballooning in size when it's more economical to eat at McDonald's than eat at home.
IF you're measuring the same items in the same proportions. And when I say same items I mean same quality and same size.My measure of inflation is what I spend at the Grocery Store. It used to cost $35 (2009) for what costs $50 (2013) today. That's inflation.
And the CPI considers all those price increases.There were 10 burritos in a package now there are only 8. 8 ounces of potato chips was $.99 and now 10 ounces is $1.49. 2 chocolate cupcakes went from $.49 to $.69. All snack products went up at lest 33%.
If they're false, why do they need to be manipulated?The CPI is a joke. The real world doesn't live in the now of false statistics that are manipulated to make sure the gov't doesn't have to increase Social Security.
Perhaps if you put more effort in understanding the topics you wish to discuss, you wouldn't have to defend nonsense positions against experts in these particular fields.
Except that is not what they did. They explained that reductions in quality are recorded as increases in price, and so are accounted for. If your snickers is reduced in size and the price held steady, CPI records that as an inflationary price increase. They are doing exactly what they should to account for what you are claiming they are not accounting for. Therefore you are quite simply, wrong. Best to just admit it and move on.
The first part is completely true. There should be false advertising suits against these products, but I doubt it'll happen.
On the second account, it's not completely true. Most restaurants offer diet meals and have even been regulated to post calorie contents on the menus. The problems with fast food is just that it's fast; there is no need to wait or think about whether or not it's a good idea. I'll typically concede that it's cheaper to just buy fast food, but it's not necessarily bad for you. Don Gorske - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This guy eats 8.5 Big Macs a day, for years now, and has no health problems. I doubt that eating burgers like that is a "good" idea, but it doesn't seem to be linked to obesity. It's the idea that fat doesn't make you fat; dietary fat and cholesterol has no connection to obesity or blood cholesterol. The problem with the average American is eating sugary foods, drinking sugary drinks, and then not exercising; fast foods are not at fault.
I understand your position. However, I don't trust experts in fields who try to baffle me with B/S.
For example, the other gentleman I finally decided to ignore spent quite a few of his earliest posts in another thread trying to convince me that Hidden Unemployment had no validity when discussing job growth figures. That the millions of persons the government lists as marginally attached and discouraged workers should not count in unemployment figures because they have given up seeking work. That the only valid numbers should be limited to those actively seeking work.
I've worked for nearly three years in my State's department of unemployment and I know better.
Empirical evidence also shows me that your touted economic indicators don't seem to affect the workers much, that you "economists and statisticians" keep propping up the idea that our system is working when we have nearly 50 million people on food stamps only 4.3 million of whom are on welfare. So forgive me if I don't have a lot of faith in your economic theories and statistical methods of support for them.
Really? So you say I am paying the same price for less, and some voodoo economic system calculates this as inflation but not really bad inflation, just "acceptable" inflation...so that makes it all right that I am consistently getting less value for my dollar?
That is how you define unemployment.
IF you're measuring the same items in the same proportions. And when I say same items I mean same quality and same size.
And then, of course, even the food at home index isn't based on what you buy. And where you live might also be above the national average.
And the CPI considers all those price increases.
If they're false, why do they need to be manipulated?
That you don't understand the theory or the math doesn't make them invalid.
That is how you define unemployment. Discouraged workers are discouraged workers; attempting to lump them into another category in order to rationalize your political position doesn't cut it with people who actually understand this topic.
You don't understand what empirical evidence entails, nor understand the rigors of the peer review process. Which is nothing to be ashamed of, but i does raise questions as to why you reference it.
Actually, if I remember correctly, he also wanted to include high school and college students who didn't want/need to work, stay home spouses, people taking care of family members...basically everyone except for "fully" retired and disabled. That was his definition of "True" unemployment regardless that he's the only one who holds that position.
Which kind of substitution are you referring to? Substituting ELIs due to non-availability, or substitution meaning changing the weights based on change in expenditures? I'm not sure how you would consider either of those "manipulating."I understand the theory and the math and that is why I say they are false statistics. CPI uses "substitutions" to manipulate and who knows what else.
NO, that is how you "economists and statisticians" and the government want to define unemployment. You do it to make things seems better than the really are. That's propaganda, not reality. Because you agree with this propaganda your facts and figures have no validity, except in your own view of things. There are millions of people who want to work but have realized no one is going to hire them, or that the chances of getting hired in this job market are slim to none. Don't even get me started on the new bodies entering the market every day from schools and colleges, often burdened with debt. Or any of the other 40 million "potential unemployed" who don't count for w/e reasons.
Peer review process.. is that where a bunch of self-styled experts gets together and decides who is telling the right truth at any partucular time? That process? LOL
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?