>Examples of those "situations"? That is a worthwhile consideration. I would say it's like any time statistics are not available, not accurate, or fail to per

>Examples of those "situations"? That is a worthwhile consideration. I would say it's like any time statistics are not available, not accurate, or fail to perfectly describe reality. For example let's go full anecdata, and go big why not? But no random choice. This is groceries, how about the biggest? Wal-Mart is one of those companies I have studied structurally for decades, since the time their approach was limited to expansion only using small stores in relatively rural areas nationwide where they really did sell for less before building the strength to arrive at their first "superstore" in a "big city". Back in 1982 my buddy was a manager in one of those small stores in a small industrial town and they were quite frugal. But they already had the most advanced computerized operation of anybody by far, fully networked and an envy of anyone wanting a distributed retail operation today. Sears and K-Mart didn't even come close, even up until the end. It was very interesting to find out how it was to be bussed to Bentonville, Arkansas every year to personally meet with Walton and be empowered by Sam to go back home and "do your best, we're behind you 100%". Turns out when I had later moved to an industrial suburb of a big city, that's where Wal-Mart decided to build their first superstore. The one where they first started selling, you know, groceries. Most people know now they are the biggest, but you gotta start somewhere. Who knew if it was going to last. It was quite experimental at first, and has gotten less so every year, I still go to the same store whenever I can. Very consistent Wal-Mart shopper, more so than most with nothing to be embarrassed about. Remember when they were first selling guitars? It was no coincidence they had a $100 model. Anyway there is a difference between a 97 cent item and a $1.00 item, but its' not just the 3 cent difference, which is not functionally part of the equation since it has already been figured in in advance. Even though it is only about a 3% margin, it's groceries and there have been centuries to go as low as you can go, and no lower. Lots of these items are produced in close partnership with suppliers when Wal-Mart makes a deal for them to scale up and supply all stores if the manufacturer can meet the price target Wal-Mart requires. These 97 and $1 items are both "one dollar items" with slightly different terms. And they stayed that way, as designed for the duration of the bonanza-for-billionaires' ZIRP era. There are lots of $2, $3 and much more price-target merchandise, and Wal-Mart is (was) the king of "rollbacks". They don't mention that word any more these days, but I have seen a rare rollback or two in a store since covid which could give support to the idea that Wal-Mart is accurately taking the pulse of the consumer situation as good as could be accomplished right now. In my observation the $1-target products stayed the same for only 6 months after increasing costs ruined everything people had been counting on for most of the 21st century. Then jumped to $1.24 to reflect a late start into an undeniable 12% effective overall dollar inflation, with allowance to avoid another price increase unless the inflation rate changes much or lasts longer than two years. "$2 items" went to $2.48, etc. And that's just a "single point" of nothing other than one person's pure anecdata. So in essence I'm trusting the Wal-Mart economists whoever they are, more than anyone else. They seem to have done OK so far. And I'm a below-average observer myself, I don't get out nearly as much as I should ;)