5 ms·

This argument is completely incoherent. You can't study the cause of inflation by looking at the distributional effects of inflation. For example, in 2020 ther

This argument is completely incoherent. You can't study the cause of inflation by looking at the distributional effects of inflation. For example, in 2020 there was a huge increase in demand for used cars, and the price of used cars increased by ~40% within a few months. But people who sold used cars did not have their costs increase - they were, after all, selling an already completed product. The IMF would therefore estimate that between 2019 and 2020, ~100% of inflation in used car prices was due to margin increases rather than inflation itself. This is obviously silly - the increase in prices was because there were too many buyers and too few cars, not because the owners of used cars suddenly because significantly more greedy overnight. It's the same with corporate profits. Inflation has distributional effects which are interesting to study, but we shouldn't confuse ourselves by claiming that the effects are actually the causes.

arcticbull 3y ago
That's not necessarily true, over the last few years we saw that companies were able to begin pushing prices to increase margins and profits on the same volume of goods instead of manufacturing more goods and making the profit on volume. Some of the margin increase was due to real supply constraints, but not all of it. For instance, when Coke and Pepsi lost ~4% of their global sales by abandoning the Russian market, they just raised prices everywhere else to compensate, because they could, and people were willing to pay. Now moving forward, they seem to be losing their ability to push prices. My point is not all cost increases were due to real constraints - they were in the auto sector, but that's not true of all sectors. If I know this, I suspect the IMF does too, and incorporated that into the report.
yunohn 3y ago
Your comment also seems incoherent. You’re comparing the concept of economy-wide inflation with the basic supply-demand economics for one item.
anigbrowl 3y ago
It's the same with corporate profits. LMAO no. It's foolish to equate an individual selling a single asset like a car with businesses that can range from little niche supply workshops up to dominating whole industries. Pure laws of supply and demand only hold true under conditions of perfect competition, and much of what we call 'business' is about playing the meta-game - out maneuvering competitors financially, creating moats and other barriers to entry to keep competitors out of a market sector, using marketing to maximize product differentiation and shape consumer perception, leveraging regulatory complexity in one's favor or lobbying for it to be reduced in order to gain some cost advantage. Real world markets are a lot more complex than the little toy ones used to explain fundamental economic concepts.
- enoch_r 3y ago
  My claim is that we can't determine what caused a price change by looking at the distributional effects of that price change. I demonstrated this with an example, where we know what caused a price change (supply chain issues for a substitute product plus increased demand) and know the distributional effect (higher margins for sellers of used cars). If we naively try to explain the price change based on the distributional effect, we would claim that higher prices were purely caused by increased greed. We know this to be false. Look, perhaps companies really did become more greedy in 2020 and that's what has really caused inflation. Or maybe large amounts of stimulus caused increased demand. Or perhaps the war in Ukraine has caused supply chain issues which drives up prices. My point is that looking at the distributional effects of inflation is just completely disconnected from the question of what caused inflation in the first place. At the very least, if you're claiming that we can figure out what caused inflation by looking at the distributional effects, can you provide some evidence, or some argument, to support that claim? Because I think my example demonstrates that common sense ("X benefitted from inflation, therefore X caused inflation") is not a good guide here, and if anything, the additional complexity of real markets works against you here - if we can't even explain inflation based on distributional effects in a toy market, what makes you so confident we can do so in the market as a whole?
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    For some goods (like cars) supply issues have indeed been the major driver of price inflation. But for many consumer goods, manufacturers have exploited the perception of inflation to increase prices or (as highlighted in the source article) to shrink package volumes while retaining the same price point. It's much less clear that supply is the driver here; bear in mind the fact that moving to smaller package sizes often imposes considerable overhead as whole production lines need to be retooled, new package containers designed and manufactured etc. It's not a passive response to market phenomena, it's a straightforward investment in the idea of giving consumers less value for their money. While I don't disagree that government policy and economic shocks can often be inflationary without any intention on the part of the business community to drive prices up, consider too that sometimes there is such intent and organizations like the Chamber of Commerce exist largely to beg for support from the public purse in hard times and deflect criticism onto whatever scapegoats are convenient in good times.
vineyardmike 3y ago
> the increase in prices was because there were too many buyers and too few cars, not because the owners of used cars suddenly because significantly more greedy overnight. No it’s literally greed. You can choose to not raise the price of your used car when you sell it. “Market price” is a hallucination that you can ignore. You’re not forced to go along with it. As you said, sellers of used cars didn’t have their cost increase, so what was the forcing function for price increases except greed? Which brings me to corporate profits…
- enoch_r 3y ago
  > “Market price” is a hallucination that you can ignore. You’re not forced to go along with it. It's a powerful signal containing important information! You don't have to go along with it, but it may be beneficial to others if you do. As an example, we bought a new car in 2019. We were planning to sell our old car but every time we were about to sell it, it came in handy - family came to town and we needed two cars, or it was nice to be able to go two places at once. In 2020, prices shot up. Suddenly, it was worth it to sell the car. Someone who valued it more than us got to use the vehicle. Was that greed?
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    > Someone who valued it more than us got to use the vehicle. Was that greed? You sold it because you could get more money for it. That’s what greed is - you chose more money. You could make the case that you weren’t behaving immorally -not everything in life has to be a charity- but you acted out of a selfish desire for more money. I’d also argue that “value it more” is pretty flimsy. Yes in a shortage the buyer clearly needed a car and was willing to spend more to acquire it instead of waiting for prices to drop. But you clearly didn’t value it beyond the 2019 price based on your stated desire to sell then, it was just an inconvenient transaction.
    - therealdrag0 3y ago
      That’s not greed. Greed implies excess and has a strongly negative connotation. Just any old decision that benefits self is not greed. Choosing a higher paying job is not greed. Selling something at market rate is not greed. Would you really sell a car or a house without taking into account ANY market information?
mcphage 3y ago
> But people who sold used cars did not have their costs increase - they were, after all, selling an already completed product. Didn't they? Increased demand for used cars should mean that used car buyers are forced to pay more for the same car than they would previously. Maybe it's lagging by a bit, but I would absolutely expect that their costs would go up.

arcticbull 3y ago

That's not necessarily true, over the last few years we saw that companies were able to begin pushing prices to increase margins and profits on the same volume of goods instead of manufacturing more goods and making the profit on volume. Some of the margin increase was due to real supply constraints, but not all of it. For instance, when Coke and Pepsi lost ~4% of their global sales by abandoning the Russian market, they just raised prices everywhere else to compensate, because they could, and people were willing to pay. Now moving forward, they seem to be losing their ability to push prices. My point is not all cost increases were due to real constraints - they were in the auto sector, but that's not true of all sectors. If I know this, I suspect the IMF does too, and incorporated that into the report.

yunohn 3y ago

Your comment also seems incoherent. You’re comparing the concept of economy-wide inflation with the basic supply-demand economics for one item.

anigbrowl 3y ago

It's the same with corporate profits. LMAO no. It's foolish to equate an individual selling a single asset like a car with businesses that can range from little niche supply workshops up to dominating whole industries. Pure laws of supply and demand only hold true under conditions of perfect competition, and much of what we call 'business' is about playing the meta-game - out maneuvering competitors financially, creating moats and other barriers to entry to keep competitors out of a market sector, using marketing to maximize product differentiation and shape consumer perception, leveraging regulatory complexity in one's favor or lobbying for it to be reduced in order to gain some cost advantage. Real world markets are a lot more complex than the little toy ones used to explain fundamental economic concepts.

enoch_r 3y ago
My claim is that we can't determine what caused a price change by looking at the distributional effects of that price change. I demonstrated this with an example, where we know what caused a price change (supply chain issues for a substitute product plus increased demand) and know the distributional effect (higher margins for sellers of used cars). If we naively try to explain the price change based on the distributional effect, we would claim that higher prices were purely caused by increased greed. We know this to be false. Look, perhaps companies really did become more greedy in 2020 and that's what has really caused inflation. Or maybe large amounts of stimulus caused increased demand. Or perhaps the war in Ukraine has caused supply chain issues which drives up prices. My point is that looking at the distributional effects of inflation is just completely disconnected from the question of what caused inflation in the first place. At the very least, if you're claiming that we can figure out what caused inflation by looking at the distributional effects, can you provide some evidence, or some argument, to support that claim? Because I think my example demonstrates that common sense ("X benefitted from inflation, therefore X caused inflation") is not a good guide here, and if anything, the additional complexity of real markets works against you here - if we can't even explain inflation based on distributional effects in a toy market, what makes you so confident we can do so in the market as a whole?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  For some goods (like cars) supply issues have indeed been the major driver of price inflation. But for many consumer goods, manufacturers have exploited the perception of inflation to increase prices or (as highlighted in the source article) to shrink package volumes while retaining the same price point. It's much less clear that supply is the driver here; bear in mind the fact that moving to smaller package sizes often imposes considerable overhead as whole production lines need to be retooled, new package containers designed and manufactured etc. It's not a passive response to market phenomena, it's a straightforward investment in the idea of giving consumers less value for their money. While I don't disagree that government policy and economic shocks can often be inflationary without any intention on the part of the business community to drive prices up, consider too that sometimes there is such intent and organizations like the Chamber of Commerce exist largely to beg for support from the public purse in hard times and deflect criticism onto whatever scapegoats are convenient in good times.

vineyardmike 3y ago

> the increase in prices was because there were too many buyers and too few cars, not because the owners of used cars suddenly because significantly more greedy overnight. No it’s literally greed. You can choose to not raise the price of your used car when you sell it. “Market price” is a hallucination that you can ignore. You’re not forced to go along with it. As you said, sellers of used cars didn’t have their cost increase, so what was the forcing function for price increases except greed? Which brings me to corporate profits…

enoch_r 3y ago
> “Market price” is a hallucination that you can ignore. You’re not forced to go along with it. It's a powerful signal containing important information! You don't have to go along with it, but it may be beneficial to others if you do. As an example, we bought a new car in 2019. We were planning to sell our old car but every time we were about to sell it, it came in handy - family came to town and we needed two cars, or it was nice to be able to go two places at once. In 2020, prices shot up. Suddenly, it was worth it to sell the car. Someone who valued it more than us got to use the vehicle. Was that greed?
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  > Someone who valued it more than us got to use the vehicle. Was that greed? You sold it because you could get more money for it. That’s what greed is - you chose more money. You could make the case that you weren’t behaving immorally -not everything in life has to be a charity- but you acted out of a selfish desire for more money. I’d also argue that “value it more” is pretty flimsy. Yes in a shortage the buyer clearly needed a car and was willing to spend more to acquire it instead of waiting for prices to drop. But you clearly didn’t value it beyond the 2019 price based on your stated desire to sell then, it was just an inconvenient transaction.
  - therealdrag0 3y ago
    That’s not greed. Greed implies excess and has a strongly negative connotation. Just any old decision that benefits self is not greed. Choosing a higher paying job is not greed. Selling something at market rate is not greed. Would you really sell a car or a house without taking into account ANY market information?

mcphage 3y ago

> But people who sold used cars did not have their costs increase - they were, after all, selling an already completed product. Didn't they? Increased demand for used cars should mean that used car buyers are forced to pay more for the same car than they would previously. Maybe it's lagging by a bit, but I would absolutely expect that their costs would go up.